Sitting of 9 December 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Primary Care
    Mr. Pond: What proposals he has for increasing the role of primary care within the NHS. [18227]
    Mr. Prosser: What proposals he has for promoting the role of primary care. [18240]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The development of primary care is one of the Government's medium-term priorities for the NHS. We recently launched a salaried doctor's scheme which will improve the quality of services and help tackle health inequalities. From 1 April next year, health authorities will be able to fund local development schemes to improve general medical services. We also intend to proceed with pilots under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 to explore more flexible ways of delivering primary care. Our further proposals will be set out in the White Paper to be published at 3.30 pm today.
    Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that general practitioners in my constituency of Gravesham and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) have recently developed a highly successful scheme of co-operation? Is he further aware that we have recently opened a minor injuries unit in Gravesend and North Kent hospital, again managed by nurses and GPs, as the first stage to establishing a proper community hospital in the borough? Is not the way forward for the health service putting GPs and nurses in the driving seat and ensuring that they can match local decisions to local needs?
    Mr. Dobson: What my hon. Friend says is true and very welcome. Such developments, which we have been looking at and studying, make us confident that the proposals that
    778
    we shall be introducing this afternoon are going with the grain of the people within the NHS, who are trying to develop better and better services for local people.
    Mr. Prosser: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most patients look upon their local nurses and health care professionals as the linchpin of the NHS? Can he assure me that he wants to see places such as Aylesham health centre, Deal hospital and Buckland hospital in my constituency flourish and expand?
    Mr. Dobson: What is wanted is a first-class health service, close to home so that people do not have to travel long distances to find primary care, community care and community hospitals. That is what is wanted increasingly by local people and the profession, and we want to help them bring it about.
    Mr. Rowe: Is the Secretary of State aware that his emphasis on primary care will be widely welcomed? At a time when the responsibility for developing the health service is shifting increasingly to primary care, is there not something absurd about carrying on the kind of rationalisation of hospitals that is going on now, without any reference to GP preferences? For example, in Kent, the Kent and Canterbury hospital and others are under threat.
    Mr. Dobson: As everyone knows, the number and nature of hospitals in the NHS has been changing since the NHS came into being. We are determined to ensure that any changes reflect the needs of people living in a particular area. As I understand it, in the area represented by the hon. Gentleman, the proposals are out for consultation. The new Government want to move to a situation where consultation is genuine and not just a period of time.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is the Secretary of State aware that Professor Howard Glenerster has suggested that GP fundholding has caused a shift in the balance of power back to GPs for the first time this century? Is the right hon. Gentleman committed to doing everything that he can to build on the success of GP fundholding and extend those opportunities to others?
    Mr. Dobson: When our White Paper is published this afternoon, the right hon. Lady will see that we are trying to build on the parts that have worked and dispense with the parts that have not worked.
    Ms Blears: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Salford has one of the new GP commissioning pilot projects. Despite its unfortunate acronym, the Salford health action group is working tremendously hard to improve the health of the people. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how important he thinks is the voice of patients and users in such projects?
    Mr. Dobson: There are some who suggest that I am noted for my vulgarity, but never in the Chamber—or at least, not this Chamber.
    My hon. Friend has made a crucial point. We need a national health service that is moulded to the needs of the patients, and the medical and nursing professions are as wedded as anyone to that concept. They are trying to liaise with local people to ensure that the services that

    779
    they provide meet the needs of local people. We are determined that our changes to the national health service will help to achieve that. I am sure that everyone will be better off as a result.

    Herefordshire Health Authority
    Mr. Keetch: What plans he has to reduce bureaucracy in the Herefordshire health authority. [18228]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Herefordshire health authority has recently announced that it will be implementing a new management structure which will save at least £100,000 per year. That sum will be available for investment in direct patient care to improve the health of the local population.
    Mr. Keetch: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that the Herefordshire health authority has the widespread support of the people of Herefordshire? Does he further agree that the implementation next April of the Herefordshire unitary authority, with boundaries coterminous with the health authority, will provide an opportunity for excellent co-operation between the local authority and the health authority? Will he give a commitment that his Department will do everything it can to support such co-operation?
    Mr. Milburn: We certainly shall—co-operation is in; competition is out. Co-operation is in especially at the boundaries between health and social care. We want there to be much more closely integrated care between health and social services to ensure that people on the boundary of the interface, who are the most vulnerable members of our community—the mentally ill, the disabled and the elderly—get the care and attention that they deserve.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the warm and widespread support for the Government's proposals to reduce bureaucracy and administrative costs in the national health service, which has already contributed to additional money being made available for the treatment of breast cancer? That is very warmly welcomed in my Cambridge constituency.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Simply by cancelling the eighth wave of fundholding, we were able to free up £20 million for investment in front-line patient services, £10 million to improve breast cancer services and £5 million to improve children's intensive care services. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members agree that those are the right priorities for a national health service.
    Mr. Maples: We share the hon. Gentleman's objective of channelling any savings on bureaucracy that he can achieve in the Herefordshire health authority into improving care for people in Herefordshire. By what criteria would he want people in Herefordshire to judge and evaluate his party's stewardship of the national health service?
    Mr. Milburn: The people of Herefordshire will be able to judge our stewardship of the national health service very simply—on the proportion of investment that goes
    780
    into front-line patient services rather than into bureaucracy; on the basis of whether there is an improvement in patient services in Herefordshire and elsewhere year on year; and by whether waiting lists are shorter, as they will be, by the end of this Parliament.
    Mr. Maples: I was interested to hear the Minister talk about funding. Will he promise the people of Herefordshire that the Government will beat the previous Government's record of increasing funding annually on average in real terms by 3.1 per cent?
    Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to look at the figures for Herefordshire health authority, he would have noticed that, for the next financial year, the allocations made by this Government will mean an increase in cash terms of 4.69 per cent., compared to 3.38 per cent. for this year under the previous Government.

    Distribution Formula
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: What representations he has received on changes to the distribution formula for allocating resources to local health authorities. [18229]
    Mr. Dobson: The allocation formula for 1998–99 was changed better to reflect the health needs of local populations in every part of the country. That was announced on 29 October 1997, Official Report, columns 828–29. I have received no representations on that matter since that date.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am about to make a representation. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the formula was altered according to deprivation, the effect of which is to channel resources away from rural areas towards urban areas, with the result that the increase for next year will be only 1.35 per cent. in my constituency, as opposed to 2 per cent. nationally? That led to a public meeting in Cirencester, which was attended by 500 people, to protest about cuts in the accident and emergency department. Is it not wholly unfair that resources are being channelled from rural areas towards urban areas? My constituents should have a fair share of the national cake.
    Mr. Dobson: As the elected Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—there are few more urban constituencies in the world—I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my health authority received exactly the same percentage increase as his. The changes were made in an effort to introduce more fairness into the allocation. The hon. Gentleman apparently does not know that, for the first time in the history of the national health service, an element of rurality was added to the formula to benefit rural areas. No Conservative Government ever did that, so the hon. Gentleman should be grateful.
    Mr. Olner: I welcome the changes that the Secretary of State has announced. Will they work their way through to Warwickshire health authority where for many years the south of the county, where morbidity figures are low, has received more funding than my constituency

    781
    of Nuneaton in the north, where morbidity figures are high? Are morbidity figures being taken into account in the new review and the reallocation of resources?
    Mr. Dobson: Mortality and morbidity statistics obviously formed a major part of the formula. However, we are not satisfied with the present formula and have set up a group to study it in time for further changes. The aim must be to allocate funds to those areas most in need, and the areas with high levels of mortality and of morbidity—in other words, sickness—must take priority.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the national health service has been a leader in information technology and getting information to Ministers so that they can deal with problems. Has he read the Financial Times this morning in which professors suggest that the year 2000 problem will affect the NHS badly, and could cause deaths? Is he aware that the IT systems are already overloaded by the work being done on that problem, and that the announcement that he is to make at 3.30 pm in relation to more changes to the IT systems will cause a crisis in IT departments in the NHS?
    Mr. Dobson: For a start, only a fool would regard the information technology systems in the NHS as satisfactory. I should certainly not address any laudatory remarks to them. They are incapable of supplying some of the most basic information that people might require. We want the health service to have information systems that help patients and help clinicians to provide better, quicker and more effective treatment. We shall get on with that. Since coming to power, we have taken action to deal with the 2000 problem. The main problem is not in the information technology systems, but in the embedded chips in all sorts of health service machinery, including scanners and other vital equipment in operating theatres. That is being addressed. It will be dealt with, but it will cost money.

    Long-term Care
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What action he intends to take to improve the quality of long-term care. [18230]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): We are introducing a range of measures to improve the quality of long-term care, including a royal commission on long-term care for the elderly, a long-term care charter, priorities and planning guidance on continuing health care needs for the NHS and proposals for independent regulatory arrangements for care homes and domiciliary care.
    Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend is obviously aware of the warm welcome for the royal commission. Will he assure the House that, when it is set up, he will hurry it up and urge it to reach its conclusions speedily so that care for the elderly can be dealt with as soon as possible?
    Mr. Boateng: We share my hon. Friend's concern that the matter should be brought to a speedy resolution. Long-term care for the elderly is a matter of the utmost importance. We have asked the royal commission to report within 12 months. We are determined to replace
    782
    the delay and prevarication that characterised the performance of the Conservative Government with speed and expedition.
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman surely cannot deny that, with an aging population and a declining work force, the quality of long-term care will depend increasingly on the ability of people to make some provision for their own health care. Does he not realise that the Chancellor's savage attack on pensions and savings will make that harder—or do Ministers believe that, for the wealthy at least, quality long-term care is best provided by quality, tax-free offshore dosh in the style of the Paymaster General?
    Mr. Boateng: Only a discredited relic of the previous Tory Administration could come forward with such a comment. This Government are giving new hope to the elderly. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is helping the elderly with their fuel bills. We are ensuring that the welfare of elderly people rises to the top of the nation's priorities, rather than remaining at the bottom.

    Road Traffic Accidents (Payment of Care Costs)
    Dr. Gibson: If he will take action to ensure that insurance companies pay the full cost of road traffic accident care to NHS trusts. [18231]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): Following the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 2 July 1997, Official Report, column 315, we are taking action to recoup in full the costs that we are entitled to recover from insurance companies for the treatment of road traffic accident victims.
    Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will please the members of the Norwich community health council who raised the issue with me. Will she consider extending that policy to the treatment of other patients, such as the victims of workplace accidents, many of whom are children?
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We shall update legislation to make the scheme more effective on road traffic accidents. On other matters, we shall ensure that the principles of a national health service funded from taxation and free at the point of use prevail.
    Mrs. Roe: Will the Minister confirm that this is the only occasion on which the Government will ask outside groups to fund a core health service activity?
    Ms Jowell: There is absolutely nothing new about the provision, which has been available since the 1930s. The Government are seeking to update it to make it work and to raise income that can be spent on front-line patient care.
    Dr. Brand: The Minister appeared to agree with the question. May I check her phrasing? Did she agree that the NHS should charge the full cost of the consequences

    783
    of road traffic accidents or the full entitlement? Are there any plans to alter the entitlement that the NHS can claw back from insurance companies?
    Ms Jowell: As I said in my reply, in redrafting the legislation, we are looking at ways of making the provision work in practice. At this stage, we are considering moving to a tariff system to replace the capped expenditure system that currently applies.

    NHS Trusts
    Mrs. Humble: What changes he intends to make to the current role of NHS trusts in shaping local health care. [18232]
    Mr. Milburn: The White Paper which will be issued shortly will set out how we shall fulfil our pledge to remove the wasteful competition of the NHS internal market. We shall show how all NHS bodies, including trusts, will play their full part in improving health care.
    Mrs. Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In examining the role of NHS trusts, will he look especially at major tourist destinations such as Blackpool, which provide for the health care of large numbers of visitors as well as the resident population?
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of the problems faced by local health services in that respect. The thousands of visitors to Blackpool every year usually have a great time—including at the party conferences, when they manage to get there—but occasionally one or two fall ill. The current arrangements do not budget for that and, worse, the health authority has to issue an invoice every single time a patient falls ill on holiday. That is costly and expensive and it is regarded as an anathema by hospital clinicians. If my hon. Friend waits approximately 34 minutes, she may hear some good news.
    Mr. Brazier: Is not one advantage of the trust system that it has allowed direct comparisons between hospitals? When a decision comes to be made on the future of the Kent and Canterbury hospital, should not the Secretary of State consider which is the most cost-efficient hospital in Kent, which hospital in Kent is able to recruit and retain the best staff and, above all, which hospital in east Kent has the support of the most general practitioners, who, after all, are the representatives of the patients?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the matter is the subject of consultation. If it is contested by one of the local community health councils, it will end up on Ministers' desks, so it is inappropriate for me to discuss the specific issues. Of course the Government recognise the important role of NHS trusts in providing health care for millions of people. We want to build on the success of some NHS trusts, but we want that success to be achieved across the country and to ensure that the shortcomings in some trusts are nipped in the bud rather than allowed to escalate.
    Mr. Burden: Has not one of the worst aspects of the internal market been the way in which it has set GP against GP and hospital against hospital? In overcoming that internal market, is there not an important strategic
    784
    role for local commissioning groups and health authorities in fostering co-operation? Does my hon. Friend the Minister welcome the review being undertaken by Birmingham health authority, and will he join me in encouraging the fullest public consultation on the proposals in the hope that it will bring Birmingham the capital investment that it has needed for too long?
    Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend knows, I am aware of the consultation being undertaken by Birmingham health authority. I very much agree that there should be proper public consultation. The review covers public services and the public have a right to expect their voice to be heard. Those charged with the responsibility of shaping and delivering health services in future should operate to a simple maxim: the national health service is a public service—it belongs to the public and should listen to what the public have to say.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the Minister will agree that one of the most common pressures on NHS trusts is that of shortage of staff. Given that his answers and official figures show that, at the moment, in England alone, we are short of about 1,000 GPs and there are about 1,500 hospital doctor and more than 8,000 nurse and midwife vacancies, will the Minister assure the House that the health service will be given the money to recruit and fill all those thousands of vacant posts?
    Mr. Milburn: The health service is being given the money to deal with such problems. I remind the hon. Gentleman, in case he has forgotten, that, during this year and next year, an extra £1.5 billion will be invested in the NHS in such areas as his. I hope that he will welcome that.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must consider not only what is happening now but the legacy left by the previous Government, especially relating to debt in trusts? Many trusts, especially those in Northampton in my constituency, are unable to take advantage of our new plans due to the legacy of debt. Will he comment on the desirability of allowing, in special circumstances, extensions to the time taken to pay off debt, which will allow trusts to plan health care more effectively and thus reduce waiting lists?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The legacy left to this Government by the previous Government is one of record waiting lists and record debt. That is what we are having to tackle; and we shall tackle it. The Government do not want the NHS to enter the next financial year as it entered this financial year—up to its eyes in debt. That means that difficult and robust decisions will have to be taken. Of course we expect those decisions to be undertaken sensitively. Where it is warranted, I know that the NHS executive will be prepared to discuss with individual health authorities an extension to ensure that debts are paid off over time.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that, under the trusts, we were able better to evaluate costs of procedures, and some trusts were doing better than others? Will he acknowledge that the number of procedures has increased the cost to the NHS? The previous Administration forgot that when they were praising the

    785
    number of procedures undertaken but not funding them. Will the Minister assure the House that, when considering local health care, there will be proper evaluation of pilot schemes, meshed in with trust provisions?
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. All incentives under the market system were for NHS trusts to expand their business, regardless of whether that was in the interests of the wider health community—or, i6ndeed, the community in general. In future, we shall be expecting NHS trusts to co-operate and work with one another so that there is maximum gain for patients. Not only doctors and nurses but managers in NHS trusts want that. They want to work together rather than being forced to compete against one another.
    Mr. Pike: In the past, has not federation between NHS trusts on fairly routine services totally ignored the views of the public in consultation exercises? Do not most people want such services to be provided locally and not far from where they live?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, just last week, in Committee, we approved an order opening trust board meetings to the public. That is important because trusts are public organisations and the decisions that they take have a real impact on the local community. In future, there will be no more secrecy concerning NHS trust board meetings and no more commercial, in-confidence information held concerning trust boards. Trust boards and NHS trusts are part of the wider NHS family and they must start acting as such.

    Health Authorities and Trusts (Amalgamation)
    Mr. Tyler: If he has reached conclusions on the amalgamation of (a) health authorities and (b) trusts; and if he will make a statement. [18233]
    Mr. Dobson: The Government have no national blueprint for mergers between health authorities or between NHS trusts. We would seek to encourage mergers of both where that is in the interests of health care in the localities concerned.
    Mr. Tyler: I accept that the Secretary of State would not wish to impose amalgamations, but will he encourage amalgamations where small trusts are presently duplicating their administrative costs? If so, will he give some indication of how quickly he would expect savings to take place, especially bearing in mind his comments earlier when he referred to the need to expand front-line services and to encourage the creation and maintenance of local community hospitals? In Cornwall, as the Secretary of State knows, we are currently addressing that problem.
    Mr. Dobson: I am a great believer in horses for courses. In many parts of the country, it is right to amalgamate smaller trusts—perhaps two or three smaller trusts or a couple of small trusts with a bigger trust—but in other parts of the country local people and clinicians and, for that matter the NHS regional management, are convinced that keeping some of the smaller trusts in existence may protect services that would otherwise not
    786
    get the attention they deserve. When proposals come to me, I will assess them against the needs of the people in the area.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State accept that the East Cheshire NHS trust has been an outstanding success, not only because of its leadership and the superb support of the executive staff but because it is a united trust that deals with the range of NHS services, including acute services, community services and mental health services. That has been to the advantage of people in Macclesfield. I had a tremendous battle a few years ago to maintain a united trust against what was then the wisdom of separate trusts for virtually every arm of the health service.
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman reinforces the point that I wish to make. People in east Cheshire are obviously well suited by the present arrangements, but people in other parts of the country do not fancy that arrangement and I do not wish to force it down their throats. As for conventional wisdom, over the years I have observed that it may be conventional but it is seldom wisdom.
    Mr. Gunnell: Is it not a bit much for the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) to whinge about the NHS when my right hon. Friend has provided £10 million extra for health services in Cornwall this year and next? My right hon. Friend knows of the excellent proposal for the merger of two trusts in Leeds, on which all the Members of Parliament for Leeds have been consulted. What criteria will he use to judge whether the merger should go ahead? I hope, however, that he will comment first on the whingeing by the hon. Member for North Cornwall.
    Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend has been in politics as long as I have and he knows that gratitude is the last thing to expect. Every time I come into the Chamber I expect Opposition Members to rise in grateful thanks for the extra funds that we have provided, but I am disappointed.
    As a distant observer, I always thought that the merger of the two acute trusts in Leeds was a good idea and I was surprised that, when everyone in Leeds had agreed to it, my Conservative predecessor turned it down. I shall be not unfavourably disposed to the proposition when it comes forward again from the people of Leeds.

    Influenza Inoculations
    Mr. Sheerman: What restrictions are currently imposed on the availability of free influenza inoculations for the public. [18234]
    Ms Jowell: Free influenza immunisation is recommended for people with underlying conditions that put them at most risk of serious illness or death should they develop flu and for people who live in nursing homes, residential homes and other long-stay facilities. Influenza immunisation is not routinely recommended for fit and healthy adults and children.
    Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend will know that, in an average year, 4,000 people die of flu and that in an epidemic year—such as 1989—up to 30,000 die. We have heard suggestions that a particularly nasty epidemic is on

    787
    its way from Hong Kong. Is she aware that only 3 million—half of the 6 million vulnerable people in this country—have taken their flu jabs? Would it not be a good idea to promote immunisation, because we can prevent many deaths this winter and stop a great cost to the NHS?
    Ms Jowell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who will be glad to hear that, so far, a record 7.1 million doses of flu vaccine have been distributed. Efforts have been made by the chief medical officer to ensure that all GPs and practice nurses are aware of the importance of making flu vaccine available to people who are vulnerable and at risk of suffering serious illness if they contract flu. The drive to maximise the number of people vaccinated this winter against flu is further evidence of the Government's determination to do what works for patient care, based on the evidence of what works as part of delivering a modern and dependable national health service.

    Kidderminster District General Hospital
    Mr. Gill: What representations he has received regarding the future of Kidderminster district general hospital. [18235]
    Mr. Boateng: The Department has received a number of letters from members of the public, councillors and local Members of Parliament on the future of Kidderminster hospital and health services in Worcestershire generally. As part of its strategic review of services across the whole county, Worcestershire health authority will conduct a formal public consultation during which all of these representations will be taken into account.
    Mr. Gill: The Minister will recognise that any proposal to close accident and emergency services at Kidderminster hospital would be a devastating blow to all those people in north Worcestershire and in my constituency in south Shropshire who are served by the 1,230 members of staff at that excellent hospital, which provides 27 medical services. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), who said in a press release 12 months ago:
    "It is a simple matter of funding. We will only prevent further cuts at Kidderminster if the Government provides enough money to the Health Authority to fund the hospital"?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend make a forceful point which will be taken into account in due course, along with all the other representations made during the formal consultation. Should the matter come to Ministers, we look forward to giving those representations the weight that is their due.
    Mr. Lock: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is considerable anger among the people of Worcestershire who have learnt that the Tory-appointed former health authority was overspending by £8 million to £9 million a year and has run up debts of between £18 million and £23 million—debts that this Government and the new health authority must sort out? That is another example of our having to sort out somebody else's mess. Does he accept that there is concern in Wyre Forest that GPs—who are part of a commissioning group whose proposals
    788
    include the retention of the accident and emergency centre—have not even had their proposal put on the drawing board for the proposed consultation? Will he see whether that proposal can be included in the forthcoming consultation on the reconfiguration of services?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes his point well. It is important that the consultation is wide ranging and takes into account all representations. GPs have an important contribution to make and I look forward enormously to considering their representations on this important issue. Bearing in mind the state of the finances of Worcestershire health authority, I hope that he welcomes the additional £1.5 million that the new Labour Government have made available to the authority to cope with winter pressures. That is the difference between the Labour Government and the Conservatives; they mismanage, but we manage more effectively.

    NHS Building Projects
    Mr. Gale: How many NHS building projects costing over £1 million have been completed since 1979. [18236]
    Mr. Dobson: The national health service reported the completion of capital schemes costing more than £1 million only between 1980 and 1985.
    Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that £25 million of the money spent during that period was spent creating a full district hospital and 24-hour accident and emergency service at the hospital in Margate that proudly bears the name of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother? Will he join me in congratulating the medical staff, nurses and administration team who have achieved a state-of-the-art hospital that serves the people of Dover, Deal, South Thanet, North Thanet, Herne Bay and other areas of south Kent? Will he take the earliest opportunity to ensure that the work of that hospital is not only continued but enhanced?
    Mr. Dobson: Given the state of my voice, I will not risk repeating a Cook's tour of Kent. I would like to congratulate the staff of the national health service in every part of the country who have kept the faith and kept us reasonably well and healthy for all these years. I hope that they will be able to continue to do so.
    Mr. Martlew: Going back to the original question, is the Secretary of State aware that since 1979 the people of Carlisle have been waiting for a new district general hospital, which was cancelled four times under the previous Government? The go-ahead was given only when we got this new Labour Government. We have started work on the site and the people of Carlisle will have a brand new hospital for the millennium.
    Mr. Dobson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and I am only sorry that I was unable to attend and, so to speak, cut the first sod.
    Mr. Lansley: Given that the level of capital investment in the national health service is important—I am sure the Secretary of State agrees—will he explain why his Department issued a press release on 29 October stating that the level of capital investment in the NHS next year

    789
    would rise by 2.3 per cent. in real terms, when, as the Department now admits, that was incorrect and the level of investment will rise by only 2.3 per cent. in cash terms?
    Mr. Dobson: It is certainly the case, on the basis of the figures in that press release, that the increase is in cash terms, and I apologise for that. In all the years that I was in opposition, I issued thousands of figures and only once got one wrong. In government, I do not intend to issue information that is wrong. We are taking steps to ensure that it does not happen again.

    NHS (Non-executive Posts)
    Mr. Barry Jones: If he will make a statement on the qualifications required of appointees to non-executive posts on health trusts and similar organisations within the NHS. [18238]
    Mr. Dobson: The Government's new criteria for choosing who should serve as chairs or non-executive directors of health boards are designed to make the boards more representative of the communities they serve and to encourage more NHS users and carers to become board members. Candidates should normally live in the area served by the trust or health authority and be able to demonstrate a strong commitment to the national health service and the local community.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Can he assure us that at least some of the new members will be sympathetic to the aims of a Labour Government? Will he also assure us that the trusts will not remain stuffed full of Conservatives?
    Mr. Dobson: I think that I can safely assure my hon. Friend that the odd person sympathetic to the objectives of the NHS has certainly crept on to some boards since we have been making the appointments. In all seriousness, there are Conservatives chairing and acting as non-executive directors of health trusts and authorities who many of my colleagues have said have done a good job, and a substantial number of them have been appointed. Also, a member of the former Conservative Cabinet has been appointed. As far as I know, no one has accused me of political fiddling in appointing Mr. Tony Newton as the chair of one of those boards.
    Mr. Soames: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his pragmatic approach. Does he agree that what matters is not people's political persuasion but whether they can do the job well, because it is an extremely important job? Does he accept that I fought tooth and claw to have a strong Labour supporter appointed to the board of Crawley hospital because he was an excellent man for the job and did it extremely well? Will he examine all the cases personally to ensure that the process does not become a political charade and that those who are absolutely qualified to do the job are appointed?
    Mr. Dobson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, as it is indeed the case that he moved heaven and earth to get a Labour supporter appointed to one of his local boards because he thought that he would do a good job. That is what I want to do. I emphasise the fact that no nominee has come to my ministerial colleagues or me who has not
    790
    been subject to the full Nolan procedure and a process involving independent members and the regional chairs of health authorities, at least half—indeed, seven out of eight—of whom were appointed by the previous Government. If Conservative Members do not like the nominations that are being made, perhaps they could speak to the people they appointed.

    Professional Training
    Ms Keeble: What extra financial support he has made available for professional training in the NHS. [18243]
    Ms Jowell: The NHS will spend around £1.8 billion on health professional education and training this year. On 30 September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that these budgets would be increased by a further £50 million next year.
    Ms Keeble: What professional training would my hon. Friend expect the NHS to provide to enable people who are currently in administrative work—especially work connected with the internal market—to move into patient care: people such as my constituent Christine Dowsett, who moved from secretarial work to patient care and is building a satisfying new career?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend's constituent is but one example of the way in which the Government are discharging their promise to move money and, therefore, in many cases people from jobs that involved red tape, bureaucracy and paper chasing in connection with the internal market, to front-line patient care. Our provisions for training in the national health service recognise the diversity of skills with which staff need to be equipped in order to deliver the modern and dependable care that people have a right to expect.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does the Minister realise that all the GP fundholders in Lichfield do not want to be retrained in new systems? They think that the internal market, as she and the spin doctors call it, is a mechanism for providing the best care for their patients. They do not want more training: they want the status quo. What does the Minister say to them?
    Ms Jowell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be here in eight minutes' time to hear my right hon. Friend set out the Government's proposals for rebuilding the national health service and ensuring that his constituents have access to the quality of primary and hospital care that they have a right to expect.
    Mr. Andy King: Can my hon. Friend assure me that, in the light of the small trusts that collapsed and were clearly a disaster under the Conservatives, such as Rugby national health service trust, which left us with rubble in place of a robust local health service, there will be clear criteria and guidance to protect local services that should be delivered locally and should not be taken away by predatory, larger, neighbouring trusts?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend knows that mergers involve ensuring that any staff who are affected receive the

    791
    training that they need to adapt to new circumstances, and that the situation that he described is currently subject to consultation.

    Health Authority Funding
    Mr. Rendel: What progress he is making towards aligning health authority funding with proposed targets under weighted capitation. [18244]
    Mr. Milburn: For 1998–99, under their capitation targets, health authorities received real terms increases in their allocations above the average of 1.9 per cent. and up to 2.65 per cent. As a consequence, more than 90 per cent. of health authorities will be within plus or minus 5 per cent. of their target as set by the national weighted capitation formula.
    Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister aware that Berkshire health authority was £19 million under capitation this year and is due to be another £13 million under capitation next year? That is having a cumulative effect and, as a result, health services in Berkshire are nothing like what they should be. That is unfair to the people of Berkshire. Will he make progress towards targets more quickly in future?
    Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to examine the figures he would realise that, as a consequence of our changes to the funding formula, Berkshire health authority is closer to its weighted capitation target than it was under the previous Government. It might be worth reminding Liberal Democrat Members of the general largesse that this Government have spread around the NHS and particularly of the figures for health authorities covering Liberal Democrat-held seats: an extra £42.5 million this winter; an extra £257 million for next year; an extra £2.2 million for breast cancer funding; and an extra £1.6 million this year for children's intensive care. A bit of gratitude would not come amiss.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Is not the real unfairness of weighted capitation that which exists between expenditure on health in England and in Scotland? Is it not wrong that 25 per cent. more per capita is spent on health in Scotland than in England? Is that what the Deputy Prime Minister had in mind when he said that we were going to have a fundamental review of regional distribution of moneys?
    Mr. Milburn: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the formula has been in operation for the past 18 years; I did not hear him complain before.
    Dr. Stoate: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Berkshire health authority will receive £15.5 million extra next year? Does he agree that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) should be glad that there is a Labour Government because we have already pledged twice as much money as the Liberals promised at the general election?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. The cash increase for Berkshire health authority will be an extra
    792
    5.25 per cent. I hope that all hon. Members welcome that and, most important, that it will be welcome in respect of patient care.

    Bureaucracy
    Mr. Hanson: What action he is taking to reduce bureaucracy in the national health service. [18245]
    Mr. Dobson: The Government are committed to maximising the proportion of health service resources devoted to patient care. We are doing that by removing the bureaucracy of the internal market and reducing management costs. On 22 May, we announced a programme of measures to start reducing bureaucracy by £100 million this year. By deciding not to proceed with the eighth wave of GP fundholding, we saved £20 million that had been earmarked for bureaucracy and nothing more; £10 million of that has already been invested instead in better breast cancer treatment for women in every part of the country and £5 million has been invested in improved children's intensive care. I cannot believe that anyone other than a shareholder in a paper company would not think that that money is being better spent.
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Will he join me in welcoming the news in this morning's press that he intends to save an extra £1 billion in the next few years from red tape and to put it directly into patient care? Labour Members believe that every pound that he puts into patient care at the expense of bureaucracy is welcome.
    Mr. Dobson: I accept everything that my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Bercow: Does the Secretary of State agree that the key to reducing NHS bureaucracy lies in the decentralisation of service, budgeting and management?
    Mr. Dobson: Well, we had—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer. Those who have been following what has been happening with cancer screening might have noticed that the cervical and breast cancer screening schemes have both been failing because they are too decentralised. We cannot assume that everything should be decentralised, whatever the circumstances. However, we want to devolve as much power, authority and influence as possible to the doctors, nurses and other professionals who do the work in the health service.

    Patient Care
    Mr. Todd: What steps he is taking to improve the monitoring, analysis and reporting of (a) the outcomes and (b) the quality of patient care. [18246]
    Ms Jowell: The national health service White Paper, on which my right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House in three minutes' time, will set out a range of

    793
    means by which the Government will seek to improve quality and outcomes for patients, which are at the heart of our determination to rebuild the NHS.
    Mr. Todd: It is obvious that patients care most about successful outcomes. What steps are being taken to share the evidence of successful treatment and to compare the performance of different areas of the health service to
    794
    ensure that we achieve the best possible value and the greatest number of successes in treating patients who seek help from our NHS?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is right: nothing matters more to patients than knowing that the treatment that they receive will work and that effective treatment is available to them regardless of where they live.

Clerk of the House (Retirement)
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a brief statement to make to the House. I have to inform Members that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the House:
"I am writing to confirm to you my decision to retire as Clerk of the House on 31st December of this year.
I have greatly enjoyed my years in the service of the House, which began in October 1956, and I have felt it to be a signal honour in the last three years to hold the office of Clerk.
During my time there have been many changes in the House's processes and a great acceleration in the activities of committees. The House has taken control of its own finances, administration and works, and more recently has implemented the Jopling Report and dealt with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. No doubt other reforms will be implemented during the lifetime of this Parliament—proof, if any were needed, of the resilience of the institution and of its deserved place in the esteem of the legislatures of many countries in the Commonwealth and beyond.
The six House Departments and other support staff such as the police, as well as the staff employed by Members, all have important roles to play in securing the effectiveness of our parliamentary system. I believe they have responded constructively to the need for change and I am grateful to them for their support whilst I have been Clerk. Finally, I pay tribute to the understanding and friendship of successive Speakers, especially yourself, and of Members on all sides. It has been a great honour for me to have served in this place. Yours sincerely, Donald Limon."
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Madam Speaker, your announcement signals the end of the distinguished period of service to the House of Sir Donald Limon, and will be heard with regret by all. I look forward to expressing my appreciation of Sir Donald's work when we debate a motion on his retirement. Our normal practice is to postpone until then the tributes that we would like to pay to him.

National Health Service
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): In good times and in bad, I have always been proud to be a member of the Labour party and I have never been as proud as I am today, as a Labour Secretary of State for Health to announce the publication of our proposals to renew and modernise the national health service, which our party founded. These are set out in our White Paper "The New NHS".
This White Paper is a turning point for the health service, the 1 million staff who work in it and all of us who use it. This Government were elected to save the heath service. We were also elected to change it for the better. We want to give it a new lease of life. Today we outline a 10-year programme of modernisation which guarantees that the NHS will get better each year—delivering quicker, higher-quality services for patients. The pace of change will be measured, but each year will bring new and visible improvements. Our plan is to give our country a modern and dependable health service that is once again the envy of the world.
We will make a start straight away. The White Paper abolishes the wasteful and bureaucratic competitive internal market introduced by the Tories. It sets out how services will respond more readily to patient needs, and describes new targets against which performance will be judged. Doctors and nurses will be in the driving seat. It spells out a whole new approach that we have called integrated care. It will break down the Berlin wall between health and social care, so that patients get swift access to care and treatment rather than being passed from pillar to post.
The changes we are outlining today will put quality, fairness and efficiency at the heart of the national health service. Quality will give patients a guarantee of excellence wherever they live. Standards will be raised right across the country. Fairness will give patients an NHS that is there for them when they need it, where they need it, regardless of their ability to pay—a one-nation NHS. Efficiency will deliver more money for patient care. There will be a relentless drive to cut out waste and unnecessary bureaucracy.
We will abolish the internal market, because it has failed. It has failed to deliver quality of care, fairness for patients or efficient services. It has set doctor against doctor, and hospital against hospital. Its business culture has been at odds with the ethos of the NHS and those who work within it. Patients want an NHS where staff can work together to provide better services, rather than having to compete against each other.
When I became Secretary of State, I promised that we would listen to the people on the front line—the nurses and doctors, midwives and other professionals and staff in the NHS. We have kept that promise. We have listened. That is why our proposals go with the grain. We are building on what has worked; we are discarding what has failed. For us what counts is what works. There will be no return to the command and control structures of the 1970s. Nor will there be a continuation of the divisive fragmentation of the 1990s. Instead there will be a third way—a new model for a new century.
We will keep the separation between planning and providing services, but we will end competition and replace it with a new statutory duty of partnership so that

797
local health services pull together rather than pull apart. We will end fundholding and replace it with primary care groups in each area, putting doctors and nurses in charge of shaping services for all patients. We will end the culture of secrecy and commercialisation, and replace it with a new duty of openness that will share best practice for the benefit of all patients. We will end short-term contacts, cost per case contracts and extra contractual referrals, and replace them with long-term agreements that offer stability and focus on quality.
Our detailed proposals for doing all that are set out in the 81 pages of the White Paper. The proposals will cut the number of commissioning bodies from around 4,000 to about 500.
We will set up primary care groups involving family doctors and community nurses in every area. They will be responsible for commissioning services for their local communities, and will account to health authorities for their activities.
General practitioners and community nurses will have a choice about the form their primary care group takes. For example, they will have the power to become free-standing primary care trusts, able to run community health services, including community hospitals. They will have a single unified budget, no part of which will be capped; so money will always be there to guarantee that patients get the medicine they need, when they need it.
The new unified budget will give GPs maximum choice in how patients' needs are met. All primary care groups will work closely with social services to provide properly integrated care.
For the first time, NHS trusts will have a statutory duty to co-operate with other parts of the NHS and to meet quality standards. They will remain responsible for treatment and care, and hospital doctors and nurses will have a greater say in shaping local services for patients.
Over time, health authorities will relinquish most of their commissioning responsibilities. They will be leaner organisations with stronger powers. They will draw up long-term programmes for improving the health of their area—in consultation with local NHS trusts and primary care groups, but also with local authorities, voluntary bodies and education and research institutions. The health improvement programmes will provide the broad framework for local action to improve general health and health services.
All of us who use the NHS deserve a guarantee of excellence. There will be new national action to extend quality and efficiency into every part of the NHS, backed by a new performance framework that will measure what counts for patients.
There will be a new National Institute for Clinical Excellence to give a strong lead on clinical and cost effectiveness, drawing up new guidelines from the latest scientific evidence.
There will be new national service frameworks—on the lines of the Calman-Hine frameworks, which have worked so well in cancer treatment—that will guarantee consistent access to services and quality of care for all patients. The frameworks will draw on the best evidence available to establish the best ways of providing particular services.
To underpin the drive for quality, there will be a new commission for health improvement, to spread best practice and tackle shortcomings.
798
Patients will also have a guarantee that public money is being used to best effect. NHS trusts will no longer be competing, but they will be comparing: comparison, not competition, will drive efficiency. A national schedule of comparative costs of treating different conditions will be drawn up, and each NHS trust will be judged against it.
Management costs will be capped. There will be clear incentives and sanctions to drive performance improvements at every level. Trust performance will be benchmarked for both quality and efficiency, and the results will be made available to the public.
Over the lifetime of this Parliament, we estimate that the changes will shift an extra £1 billion from bureaucracy into front-line patient services. That will be on top of the extra £1.5 billion that the Chancellor has made available this year and next year for the NHS. We will continue to raise spending in real terms every year on the health service.
The changes will give patients a modern and dependable health service that makes best use of developments in modern medicine and information technology, to offer readily available high-quality services.
We have already promised to cut waiting lists. We will have done so by the end of this Parliament. I announce today three new milestones by which people will be able to chart our progress towards the new NHS.
First—at home—everyone will be able to contact NHS Direct, which is a new 24-hour telephone advice line staffed by nurses. Three pilot care and advice helplines will begin in March 1998. By 2000, it will cover the entire country.
Secondly—at a community level—patients will benefit from quicker test results, up-to-date specialist advice in their own doctor's surgery and on-line booking of out-patient appointments by connecting every family doctor to NHSnet, which is the NHS's own information super-highway. Demonstration sites will be in operation in 1998, and the services will be available to general practitioners across the country by 2002.
Thirdly—in hospitals—everyone with suspected cancer will be guaranteed a specialist appointment within two weeks of their GP deciding that they need to be seen. That will start in 1999 for every woman with suspected breast cancer, and be extended to all other cases of suspected cancer by 2000.
We have great ambitions for the national health service. We will take on those who say that the NHS has had its day, and all we can do is preside over its decline. We will work with the 1 million people who make the NHS so special, even now, to turn it into a modern and dependable service for the coming century.
We know that doctors and nurses and all the staff of the national health service wish to rid themselves of the unfairness and inefficiency of the current system. That is our ambition, too. It is what they want, and it is what the people of this country want.
Next year, the national health service celebrates its 50th birthday. The Labour party that founded the national health service is now setting about modernising it to prepare it for the challenges of the next 50 years: a new national health service, drawing on new technology, new drugs, new quality standards and new ways of working; a

799
new national health service, based on its timeless principle that the best health services should be available to all—the best for all, quality and equality for the new century.
Mr. John Maples: The dilemma facing the Secretary of State in formulating policy is the same one that faced us. His policy objective is one that we share—to improve the quantity and quality of patient care—but that is difficult to achieve in the context of an aging population, medical advances, rising expectations and limited money.
What all that calls for is maximum financial efficiency and maximum clinical effectiveness, and the structure of the national health service needs mechanisms to drive that. We did that when we were in office. We introduced general management and we introduced the purchaser-provider split to separate commissioning from delivery of service, which allowed trusts to get on with providing services.
We gave contestability of contracts to provide some choice between providers. We instituted fundholding, which put money and decisions as near to patients as possible. I remind the House that, although the Labour Government are adopting many of those principles today, they opposed them all when they were suggested.
Those mechanisms drove change. When the Secretary of State and I talk to trusts—although I doubt the Secretary of State asks this question, because he will not want to hear the answer—they say that most of the change achieved in the past five years has been driven by GP fundholders, not by health authorities. In a recent survey, 85 per cent. of the trusts surveyed said exactly that, and 70 per cent. of those said that the changes that had been driven had benefited all patients, not just those of GP fundholders.
Of this country's GPs, 58 per cent. have chosen to become fundholders, and more than 60 per cent. of this country's patients are patients of fundholders—they, too, believe that the change has been effective, and 93 per cent. of them wish to retain their practice-based budget. Almost all academics and health economists agree with that, and their criticism of us is not that we instituted an internal market, but that we never really let it work.
What is crucial is who holds the budget. Fundholders were happy to take that on, balancing their clinical freedom with financial responsibility. If the Secretary of State's commissioning groups do not have that same power, they will not achieve the same results or, indeed, the better results to which he aspires.
I welcome the Government's acceptance of many of the principles of the internal market. I welcome the retention of the purchaser-provider split, with the choices that that allows. I welcome the retention of the principle of a primary-care-led NHS. I welcome GPs remaining in the driving seat in developing primary care and commissioning secondary care. All that builds on principles that were established by our reforms. I congratulate the Secretary of State on accepting and building on those reforms, as his colleagues will find he has done when they take the time to read the White Paper.
However, I am concerned that the new group commissioning model is being imposed on all GPs, and that it may prove too prescriptive. There has been
800
enormous value in the variety of commissioning models that have developed in the past five years, including fundholding and multifunds on one side, and commissioning groups of non-fundholders on the other. We cannot support the total abolition of fundholding, and we shall work over the coming weeks to persuade him that, within his group commissioning model, practice-level budgets should continue for those GPs who want them.
There is a danger that the loss of independence of fundholders will lead to a loss of the initiatives that they have developed for their patients—for example, more patient services available within practices, not in hospitals—and of improvements in hospital services that have been driven by fundholders.
We shall press the right hon. Gentleman to allow maximum flexibility in his new commissioning group structure, and let GPs choose control over practice-based budgets where that is what they want. I am not sure how groups of 50 to 60 GPs will manage to agree anything. If they cannot agree and if they cannot devolve budgets, there is a danger that they will become mini-health authorities.
Flowing through the White Paper—notwithstanding what I have welcomed about it—there is a touching old Labour faith in co-operation and good will; but these new commissioning groups will succeed only if they have the power to make real choices. If the new commissioning groups are not flexible and cannot make real choices to influence providers, they will not achieve the objectives that the Secretary of State has set for them.
The White Paper is unclear on a couple of points. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have not had a chance to study it in detail, but I should be grateful for some clarification. Will the commissioning groups be able to make choices among secondary care providers? Will they be able to devolve part of their budgets internally within the groups? Will the Secretary of State try to ensure a full day's debate on the White Paper in the new year, once we have all had a chance to study it?
Is the Secretary of State's model for GP commissioning open to further suggestions? Will it give GPs the flexibility to develop commissioning in ways that they may choose—perhaps different ways in different places? Will GPs be compelled to use a particular hospital, or will they be able to choose which hospital to send patients to?
What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to the 58 per cent. of GPs who have chosen fundholding, or to the 93 per cent. of this group who say that they want to keep practice-based budgeting? After all, they number more than half the country's GPs. Why should they be prevented from improving patient care as they wish?
Will the Secretary of State in due course—perhaps not today—detail how the £1 billion that he says will be saved from reduced red tape will be achieved? Can he promise us today that, under Labour, the number of qualified nurses will increase by at least 3,000 a year on average, as it did under the former Government? Can he promise to beat our record of increasing the number of in-patient and day cases treated by an average of more than 4 per cent. a year? Above all, can he promise to beat the previous Government's record of increasing national health service funding by more than 3 per cent. a year in real terms?

801
We and the British people will judge the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship of the Department, and these reforms, by those exacting standards.
Mr. Dobson: The response of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) suggests that the country believed that we had a sort of NHS nirvana until the end of April 1997. Most people do not like what has happened to the health service; most people working in it do not like it, either. They find it wasteful and unfair to patients. They do not like the fact that those working in the NHS have been forced to participate in activities that they find unfair and unpleasant.
It was not I who described the effects of the internal market on doctors as repugnant: it was Sandy Macara, the chairman of the British Medical Association, who said that the present system is repugnant to doctors. What is more, he did not try to single out doctors in the way the previous Government tried to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) spoke earlier of a problem that had arisen in Rugby because of the internal market: nothing was done, nothing could be done. GPs, whether fundholders or non-fundholders, could not bring about any improvements in the hospital in question. As a result, the people of Rugby have been punished, in effect, by having their hospital taken away from them. Our proposals to establish quality standards and ensure that they are met, and to give more power to GPs and community nurses, will prevent just that sort of episode.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether GPs will be allowed to send patients to the hospital of their choice. He actually used more obscure language, but I think that that is what he meant. Before the previous Government's changes, a GP could send patients to any hospital in the land. It was that Government who introduced restrictions; we, of course, will allow GPs to do so again. But we must not put GPs in the position of not wanting to send people living in Rugby to Rugby hospital because it is not good enough. They should not be forced to send people to Coventry for a decent level of care. We need to ensure decent care in every hospital in the country. The Tory system has failed to deliver that.
The hon. Gentleman spoke mockingly of a
"touching old Labour faith in co-operation and good will"
I plead guilty to that any day; most doctors and nurses would plead guilty to it as well. They were horrified that their management sometimes told them that they were not allowed to co-operate with the hospital down the road because it might undermine their commercial position.
I have talked to nurses and to cardiac surgeons who tell me that, for commercial reasons, their management prevented them from disclosing to others and publishing scientific papers about improvements in treatment because that local management thought that it would undermine the competitive position of the hospital for which they were working. We will be getting rid of all those absurdities.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon talked as if everything had worked well. We have to get down to the solid examples of what was going on. Under the present arrangements, we have, in theory, national standards for cervical cancer and breast cancer screening. There is no statutory obligation on the trusts carrying out the screening to meet any of the quality levels that have been
802
established. Virtually their only obligation is to break even, and, under the previous Government, an increasing number could not even do that.
We are putting in place a system that will set standards and place obligations on those who are responsible for meeting those standards. They will be obliged to meet them, and we will put in place quality assurance arrangements which will ensure that they do meet them. Doctors, nurses, midwives, other professionals, non-professionals and managers in the health service have told me that they want the sort of things that we are proposing. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that what we are proposing today will be unpopular with the professions concerned, he should wait for a day or two and see what their response is.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I offer a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement, which will be widely welcomed throughout the country. One of the consequences of the previous Government's record on the NHS is that I regularly find myself writing five, six, seven or more separate letters about one constituent's problems because of all the various agencies which were brought about through the previous Government's fragmentation of the NHS. That occurs particularly where we have an overlap between health and social care.
Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about his proposals to break down what he rightly describes as the Berlin wall between health and social care? If my right hon. Friend goes back to 1974, he will see that, historically, one of the most damaging decisions for health care in this country was that of Sir Keith Joseph, when he removed from local authorities the public health function and started to create the confusion that has reigned ever since on the issue of social care and health care.
Mr. Dobson: I thank my honourable and good Friend for his welcome for what we have announced today. We are trying to address exactly the point he made about patients and the people representing them being badgered and passed from pillar to post because of the need to approach half a dozen agencies within the national health service and the local authority in order to get proper care for somebody.
It is difficult enough for a Member of Parliament, and it must be almost impossible for some poor old lady who probably cannot see very well or has other problems. My hon. Friend obviously shares my view that the touching faith in co-operation and good will might apply there as well as in the arrangements we are making. We will be producing a further White Paper on social care at the beginning of the new year.
On public health, the chief medical officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, is presently looking at how best to deliver the public health function at national and local level. I have not yet seen his report, but I would expect that he might see a greater role for local authorities, which used to play a bigger part than they do now.
Mr. Simon Hughes: A serious White Paper on the future of the NHS is very welcome. As today's successor to the party which was the other parent of the NHS, we will always be constructive in battling for the best publicly funded national health service. We will support the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in everything they do to achieve that.

803
Where we differ, it will not be personal antagonism; it will be because we have a different view of how to get there. That will always be the basis of our criticism. Like other hon. Members, I hope that we have an opportunity for a full debate early in the new year when we have all had the chance to consider the White Paper—as we will carefully—and give a response in due course.
The big questions for the Secretary of State are those asked outside this House: what will the health service do, and will there be the resources to pay for it? However welcome a National Institute for Clinical Excellence may be, there will still be two sorts of rationing for health service patients. First, for this Parliament at least, some 1 million people at a time are likely to be rationed by waiting lists. Secondly, there will still be rationing by post code—or will it be the case that, no matter where people live, they will always have access to exactly the same services as everybody else? That is a main cause of complaint now.
Is there really proof that the proposed system for commissioning will be much more cost-efficient than the present one? There is some evidence to the contrary. Where is the evidence that it will be more accountable? Many of us believe that representatives of the public, democratically elected—not professionals—should choose the priorities in health and social care. The White Paper appears to place more power in the hands of professionals.
Of course we welcome saving money from thousands of unnecessary contracts, if that is the case. However, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that claims that, for example, £1 billion will be saved in bureaucracy—that is the figure in the White Paper—will be independently verified, as opposed to just being the subject of Government pronouncement and spin doctor repetition? It is a high figure: 10 per cent. of the management costs of the health service. I want the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that he really does believe that 10 per cent. of management costs can be saved during this Parliament.
I have two final points. First, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the internal market is not being abolished? The Tory internal market is being abolished, and we welcome that, but, if there are purchasers and providers, and if there are contracts—even if they are called service agreements—the reality is that there is a market. Or is the right hon. Gentleman saying, as he did in the Rugby example, that there will be no opportunity for a purchasing doctor to choose to go outside his area if he so wished? [Interruption.] If there is to be choice, there is a market, and if there is a market, it is continuing—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman made the point that we will debate these matters in full in a few months' time. I appreciate that he is the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but even so he is taking an inordinate length of time. There must be 50 or 60 Members trying to catch my eye, and there is no way in which even half of them can be called if this continues. I want just one question from each Member called, and then I shall wind up questions on the statement.
Mr. Hughes: Will the Secretary of State say whether, as well as his good aspirations, the Government intend to
804
increase, in real terms, the amount of public wealth spent on national health? We get it on the cheap. Will there be not just the plans, but the resources that the NHS needs?
Mr. Dobson: I do not know whether I dare welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the White Paper. It is a serious and solid document, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) for the enormous amount of hard work that he put into its preparation.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised a huge number of topics. I shall try to reduce that to a few points. First, there will be massive reductions in the number of transactions within the NHS and the number of people carrying out those transactions. The commissioning will come down from between around 4,000 bodies of one sort or another to about 500. That will have parallel beneficial effects on those dealing with them.
There is no internal market. There cannot be a market unless there is competition, and there is not going to be competition. Generally speaking, most GPs in York, for example, where I came from originally, want to be able to send their patients to York district general hospital, because it is the local hospital and because it is convenient for patients and their relatives.
GPs want the hospital to be absolutely top-notch, but, unlike under the present system, they will be able to send their patients to Leeds, Sheffield or wherever for specialist treatment if they so choose. We cannot have the situation that arose in Rugby, when nothing happened, the hospital went down the drain, and the population of the area were punished for the failures of management within the NHS. That is what we are going to avoid. There will be massive reductions in costs.
Yes, we want to apply national standards. Our arrangements are intended to tackle and eliminate the gross variations in treatment and quality, but I come back to one point: despite everything that has happened, for most people in most parts of the country and for most of the time, the NHS does a damned good job, and they are grateful.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is to be the form and function of the proposed National Institute for Clinical Excellence?
Madam Speaker: Well done.
Mr. Dobson: It is intended to bring together the various professionals to consider the latest evidence on new technology and new drugs, to assess their value and decide which ones are worth pushing, and in effect brand some things as good for the NHS. It will then be up to the rest of the machinery to get on with it, but the process will be led by the professionals. The standards applied will have to be acceptable to the professions. I hope that the institute will be successful.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The proposals represent more evolution and modification than some of the destructive and extremely negative comments that the Labour party made in opposition, but what specific targets is the Secretary of State planning to set?

805
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said, over the past 18 years, the average increase in spending has run at 3 per cent. in real terms, whereas the right hon. Gentleman is looking at 1.7 per cent. in real terms. He has to do more with less. The only specific target announced so far was to take 100,000 people off the waiting lists, but that was followed by the biggest increase in the number of people on waiting lists that the NHS has ever known. What are the targets, and what redress will there be if the Secretary of State fails to meet them?
Mr. Dobson: I should have thought that the right hon. Lady knew from her experience as Secretary of State that, when anyone starts reciting figures about the money that has been spent on the health service, the public switch off. They switch off if I do it, and they certainly used to switch off when she did it. After all, she was found in several opinion polls to be the least sincere politician in Britain, and God knows there is a lot of competition.
People will see change and improvement in the national health service year in, year out, because we will bring together the people working in the service—doctors, nurses and others—rather than have them working against one another. They will be improving standards, we will be putting in place the appropriate machinery, and we will be increasing the money available to the NHS in real terms year on year.
The right hon. Lady was a member of the Government who set the last budget. This year and next year, we are finding £1.5 billion on top of what her Government intended to find, so a period of quiet from her might not be a bad idea.
Ann Keen: On behalf of community nurses and other health professionals, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He is proud, we are proud, and I know that Aneurin Bevan would be particularly proud. I welcome the shared role of community nurses and general practitioners. Will my right hon. Friend enlarge on how he envisages the development of the role of community nurses?
Mr. Dobson: There will be a greater role for all nurses who want to increase their contribution, and who have the necessary and skills and training. Community nurses will play an important and influential role, along with general practitioners, in the commissioning process.
Commissioning is not the only issue. One of the problems of the previous system was that the organisation of general practitioners centred on purchasing hospital care. More joint effort and thought should be put into improving primary and community services.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As an honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Midwives, I congratulate the Secretary of State on reversing the fragmentation that was occurring in the national health service, and ensuring that it is an integrated, seamless service. Does he accept that there is some concern about the abolition of fundholding, because fundholding practices provide the widest range of medical
806
services at a doctor's surgery or medical centre rather than a hospital, saving the health service money? Will he give an assurance that his reforms will not bring that to an end?
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I have said this before and I shall say it again: he has made a singular contribution—an honest, decent contribution—to health debates. He has always stuck to his guns, and I respect him for that.
We are trying to ensure that the best manifestations of fundholding, together with the big improvements that non-fundholders have made in recent years, remain and strengthen the system. We want to eliminate the disadvantages. We may even manage to convince a substantial number of fundholders. Indeed, I think that we may have convinced them already.
Ms Jean Corston: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the White Paper will be warmly welcomed by those doctors and health care workers who have pioneered locality commissioning schemes, such as that in south-east London, on the basis of co-operation and good will in the face of Tory market dogma? The range of services they provide is the envy of many fundholders. Will he confirm that, at long last, doctors and nurses will be put in the driving seat for decisions about the treatment that patients should get?
Mr. Dobson: I can certainly confirm that we intend that doctors, nurses and other health care professionals should be in the driving seat. As for fundholders, as those hon. Members who were at Health questions know, we have established 42 pilot commissioning schemes, most of which involve fundholders from those areas who volunteered to take part.
Multifunds and similar ideas are steps away from the individualistic aspects of fundholding—a recognition that, when all the doctors, community nurses and other primary care professionals in one area get together, they can be more influential and have more scope and choice than when they act as individuals. I know that that may sound a trifle socialistic; but it is true.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that the reforms to the functions of health authorities will ensure the future of joint hospitals trusts, such as the Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals NHS trust in my constituency? There must co-operation between the commissioning health authorities in a locality rather than competition. The York model, together with the limitless funds supposedly available for general practitioners in the future, should ensure that they will be able to commission services in the local hospital, which my constituents and those in Watford greatly appreciate.
Mr. Dobson: I do not like making promises that I cannot guarantee to deliver, and I certainly cannot guarantee the future of any particular hospital when it is raised in the Chamber as it has just been. I would expect GPs in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to try to make sure that the best secondary hospital services were available to their patients as near to their patients' homes as is sensibly convenient, and reasonably cost-effective. I hope that everyone involved in the health service in the

807
area will co-operate to that end. I welcome the hon. Gentleman as an obvious co-operator among the wild competitors opposite.
Jane Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the Tory internal market will result in the abolition of the senseless competition between NHS organisations such as hospital trusts? Instead of sharing expertise and information and co-operating with each other, they have been tempted to compete against one another, to the detriment of us all.
Mr. Dobson: I can certainly confirm that, in future, trusts will have a statutory obligation to deliver services to the quality standards that have been laid down. They will also be under a statutory obligation to co-operate with other parts of the national health service. It is a pretty extraordinary thought that, until we change the law, my hon. Friend's local hospital is under no obligation to co-operate with the hospital in Slough, which is not far down the road. It seems crazy, but that is the system we have inherited.
Mr. David Curry: If the Government intend to have no more than about 500 commissioning units, that implies that each will cover a very large area—particularly in rural areas—including some minuscule practices serving no more than 2,000 patients? If a rural area has a natural coherence and identity, will the Secretary of State ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to recognise that and that no artificial limit will be placed on the number of people that can constitute one of the commissioning groups?
Mr. Dobson: As the right hon. Gentleman may recollect from when he was an Environment Minister, I am a great believer in horses for courses. We do not seek to enforce one model in every city, suburb and rural area. We want a system that meets the needs of the patients. We are determined to provide a national health service that is moulded to the needs of the patient, rather than the patient having to be moulded to the institutions.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I warmly welcome the White Paper. Will my right hon. Friend explain its impact on maternity services? In the next 12 months, 750,000 women will give birth, and virtually all of them will be attended by midwives. Will he give an assurance that the budget for maternity services will not rest solely with GPs, but that other professionals such as midwives will have a say?
Mr. Dobson: That is certainly the case. There will be an increased role for everyone involved in primary care, including midwives, who also have a significant role in hospitals. That may be one sector where massive savings can be achieved—in any particular town or city, it is possible to predict how many women will become pregnant in any given year.
However, in many areas, contracts are issued case by case, and the paperwork costs a fortune. Longer-term contracts that are not issued case by case, would produce savings, particularly in maternity services, as it is possible
808
to predict how many people need treatment and run a financial system that suits those circumstances, instead of the ridiculous system now in place.
Mr. Tony Baldry: From reading the White Paper, it would appear that the Secretary of State is not proposing any substantial reduction in the number of NHS trusts, but rather that trusts co-operate in primary care plans and various other things through health authorities. Will he give thought to ensuring that proposals to reorganise NHS trusts are put on hold while implications are considered?
One of the difficulties with the example of the Rugby NHS trust, which the right hon. Gentleman cited, is that it is a small NHS general hospital trust. There must be provision in NHS services for small hospitals, such as the Rugbys of this world or Horton general hospital in Banbury. If he is not proposing substantially to reduce the number of NHS trusts, will he consider putting such proposals on hold until we have all had a chance to consider the implications of today's White Paper, especially for smaller hospitals?
Mr. Dobson: That would not be a sensible way of approaching matters. The point that I made at Question Time was that we want to encourage mergers between trust and trust and health authority and health authority which appear to make sense to people in the locality. We do not want to lay down the law; we want to encourage them.
More than 50-odd trusts are involved in merger talks about which the public know. I do not think that any virtue would be served in going back on our recent decision to agree to the merger in Derby, or holding back our examination of the proposal which I understand will be coming from Leeds to merge the two acute trusts there.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. In certain particular circumstances, it might be wise to hold off certain mergers, but that should, generally speaking, be a matter for those in the locality concerned.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the only basis for the competition in the health service under the previous Government was that they were preparing it for privatisation? Does he acknowledge that people will welcome the White Paper because it proves that, without privatising the NHS or encouraging competition, it can be modernised by encouraging collaboration and all the values which were the basis of the health service when it was created?
Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Roger Gale: The right hon. Gentleman has stressed the need for the health service to reflect patients' needs. That is a view which I share entirely. What safeguards does he intend to build into his system to ensure that medical freemasonry and cosy relationships between some GPs and some consultants do not militate against patients' interests and choice?
Mr. Michael Fabricant: That is a googly.
Mr. Dobson: No, it is not a googly. We have to work on the assumption that the bulk of the medical profession

809
does a good job, wants to do a good job, does not want a cushy number and wants to look after patients—although there will be a limited number of people who will not fall into those categories. We need in place a system that ensures that they do their job properly to the professional standards that their professional colleagues have laid down. That will certainly come about as a result of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence.
I very much welcome the fairly recent decision of the General Medical Council to address the question of doctor performance and people who are not living up to professional standards of patient treatment. Although self-regulation is not right in other areas, I strongly believe that it is appropriate for the medical and nursing professions. However, it is up to them to demonstrate to their colleagues and the public that self-regulation works. We want to encourage them to do so.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason why he is able to make today's statement is that the British people woke up in time? They realised earlier this year—and perhaps a bit before—that the national health service was on its way to the hands of insurance companies and other speculators, which would probably create a service costing twice as much and similar to that in America?
Blessed with this good fortune, I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that he will have to fight for every penny with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—£10 billion extra already collected in taxes—due to the advance of medical science. He will always have to remember this: the NHS is not just a service; it is a cause worth fighting for.
Mr. Dobson: I certainly agree with the last point that my hon. Friend makes. The national health service is popular with people in this country, partly because it provides them with such a good service when they and their families are in need, and partly because of the principles on which it is based. When I am doing okay,
810
I pay in to look after people who are in trouble: in turn, if I fall ill or have an accident, other people pay in to look after me.
People believe, because of that principle, that the national health service does not just bind the nation's wounds: it helps to bind the nation together. That is why the people treasure it.
Mr. Eric Forth: The Secretary of State referred to quality standards and targets. Is there any contradiction between those and the reference he also made to long-term agreements? If too many institutions are committed to long-term agreements and fail to meet the quality standards or targets, insufficient flexibility may exist to enable the institutions to improve to meet the targets.
Mr. Dobson: We live in a world of dilemmas, and the right hon. Gentleman's point contains some truth. Therefore, we will have to try to ensure that the problem does not arise.
It is not a question of the local primary care group making an agreement with its local hospital on how many services will be provided and to what standard and price they will be delivered. I expect that arrangements will be made so that, if standards are not met, either improvements can be enforced or the institutions can break out of the contract.
We do not want the ultimate weapon to be used, but it may need to be available in the negotiations to give weight to the demands of the primary care group. Primary care groups and their patients do not wish to be forced to transfer their trade to another hospital 20 miles away. That is why, in parallel with the pressures that the primary care group will be able to apply locally, we will introduce national measures to drive up standards and to ensure that they are maintained.
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Dobson. Go and rest your voice.

Points of Order
4.27 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to have to ask you for a ruling, but this morning, from the news bulletins, and especially from the "Today" programme, one would have gathered that we would have two statements in the House this afternoon, not one. We were told in some detail what the Government will propose in a White Paper on freedom of information.
As soon as I got to my office, I rang the Chancellor of the Duchy's office; asked whether there would be a statement, and was told that there would not; and asked whether a White Paper would be published today, and was told that it would not be published. Again, we have government by leak and innuendo. I put it to you that it is intolerable that we should hear on the radio what purports to be an accurate account of an important item of Government policy, instead of hearing it in the House. I should be grateful for your guidance.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order.
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must wait for my answer, and not be so impatient.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to apologise most sincerely to you and to the whole House for what appears to have been a premature disclosure of some features of the freedom of information White Paper which I hoped to present to the House this Thursday. I should like to assure you that I myself had no part in this, and no knowledge of it. No one is more annoyed than I that these details should have emerged, and I believe that it is a disservice to the House.
Although it could be informed speculation, we cannot discount the possibility that it may have been premature disclosure from within Government. Therefore, I am taking this matter very seriously, and I have set in train the task of looking further into the circumstances surrounding the reports.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Could we have sensible points of order, please?
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: This is a genuine point of order, Madam Speaker. We have listened to
812
exchanges for approximately an hour on the NHS White Paper. At the same time, a booklet relating to the health service in Scotland, "Designed to Care", has been published. However, we have not had a statement from the Scottish Office on the document, although hon. Members appreciate that there are different aspects of the health service in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister responsible for health in Scotland have been briefing the press all day, yet Scottish Members have not had an opportunity to question the issues contained in the document. It almost seems as if the Scottish Office has published a document which should be called "Designed to Ignore Scottish Members of Parliament".
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady appears to be asking me whether I have heard from the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is seeking to make a statement on the document to which she has referred. I have not heard that a statement is to be made, but I am sure that those on the Front Bench will have noticed what she has said.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You did not ignore Scottish Members of Parliament.
Mrs. Ewing: We are the only two Scottish Members here, Tam.
Madam Speaker: Of course I do not ignore Scottish Members—they are part of the whole in this House, as far as I am concerned. I call them whatever the statement may be, and whatever Question Time it may be.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you heard from the solicitors acting for the late Robert Maxwell and currently acting for the Paymaster General about whether there is any legal impediment preventing the Paymaster General from coming to this House to make a personal statement about his financial affairs? In particular, we should like to know whether there was any impropriety in his dealings with the late Robert Maxwell's companies.
Madam Speaker: I have had no communication from solicitors. I am rather delighted that I have not.

Press Complaints Commission
4.32 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a statutory Press Complaints Commission; to make further provisions in respect of libel actions brought against newspapers; and for connected purposes.
I am seeking leave to bring in a Bill to change the status of the Press Complaints Commission from a self-regulatory, voluntary body to a statutory body with legal authority. I pay tribute to the present chairman, Lord Wakeham, for his tireless work in trying to make the press barons more accountable to the code of practice.
None the less, about 200 people every week feel that they have been wronged by inaccurate press reporting. The majority are forced to settle for less than they should, simply because of the imbalance between the powers and financial clout of the press barons and the powerlessness of the individual. If a newspaper refuses to correct an inaccurate, irresponsible or malicious story, there is very little an aggrieved party can do.
Currently there are two forms of redress; neither is entirely satisfactory. The individual can pursue a libel case in the courts, but the costs are prohibitive. Understandably, there is no legal aid for libel, and facing the financial might of the press barons is quite daunting. Alternatively, the matter can be referred to the Press Complaints Commission. If the Press Complaints Commission upholds the complaint, the newspaper must publish the verdict by way of a correction.
However, the size, position, timing and content of that correction is not a matter for the wronged person, who has absolutely no influence as to what is printed. Inevitably, therefore, the correction fails to rectify the damage done by the original article. So the dice are loaded against the public and there is a clear need for a new body to balance better the power of the press moguls and those who have been wronged. Let me make it clear that I am not proposing a privacy Bill, although the new Press Complaints Commission would certainly be involved in implementing any changes made to privacy law.
I seek the leave of the House to concentrate on another issue, which is not privacy but to redress the damage done by inaccurate, irresponsible or malicious reporting by increasing the remedies available to the individuals. Most people who are wronged by the press want nothing more than for the record to be put straight by way of a correction and an apology, and they deserve nothing less. However, at the moment an apology can mean virtually anything. Editors may offer to write another article, which is favourable to the person wronged, to publish a letter from the aggrieved individual or to publish a correction—never an apology.
Inevitably, such pieces are not accorded the prominence that they deserve and are designed to attract as few readers as possible. Understandably, newspapers do not like to admit when they are wrong and are reluctant to publish anything that suggests that they have made a mistake. They shy away from admitting any blame. People who run newspapers have a public responsibility to get things right. When mistakes occur, they have a duty to put them right quickly and frankly.
Under my Bill, corrections and apologies will have to be of a minimum size. Never smaller than the offending article, they will appear on the same page as the original
814
article, with the same headline size and a wording agreed by the person who has been wronged. It is important that the impact of the apology matches that of the offending article. That is not impractical, as newspaper editors already argue, although it may be unpalatable for some.
If editors refuse to publish a correction and an apology, which they are fully entitled to do if they believe that there is no cause, there will still be other ways for the individual to proceed. The Press Complaints Commission will still have the power to consider the complaint and make a ruling. In addition, two funds will be established—raised by way of a levy on newspapers, either on profits or turnover. The first will be a compensatory fund to repay any expenses to the claimant arising from the publication of an inaccurate article, such as legal fees and so forth, perhaps, up to about £5,000. The other fund will be able to offer an interest-free loan for individuals to pursue libel cases.
In either case, the funds will be made available only after the Press Complaints Commission has judged the claimant to have a bona fide, prima facie case. While the compensatory fund would require an annual top-up, the loan fund would be made good either by the aggrieved party, should he or she lose the libel case, or by the newspaper, should the libel be upheld, although some provisions will be needed to pay off bad debts.
I propose one final sanction, which would be used only in the most extreme and serious cases. If the Press Complaints Commission deemed that an article was written with malice and recklessness and without regard to the consequences of publication, it could suspend the circulation of a newspaper for one day. In effect, it would take the newspaper off the streets because it had been irresponsible and totally reckless. That is a draconian measure, but it would act as an ultimate deterrent for editors who want to publish scurrilous material regardless of the damage that it might cause.
The Bill is not an attack on the press, but an attempt to gain the support of the House to give real teeth to the Press Complaints Commission, with the aim of outlawing inaccurate, irresponsible or malicious journalism. As far as most editors and journalists are concerned, there is nothing to fear because the vast majority of them are diligent and responsible.
My aim in seeking leave to introduce the Bill is to level the proverbial playing field between the individual and the press barons; to reduce the incidence of poor reporting; and to provide David with the rocks to fight Goliath.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Martin Bell and Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.

Press Complaints Commission
  PRESS COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
  Mr. Anthony Steen accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a statutory Press Complaints Commission; to make further provisions in respect of libel actions brought against newspapers; and for connected 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 99].
Orders of the Day

  Government of Wales Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [8 December], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Which amendment was, to leave out from the word '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.'—[Mr. Ancram.]
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made:—
  4.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): On 18 September the people of Wales backed the Government in creating a modern new democracy for Wales. They voted for a new Wales and a new future. They demonstrated that we in Wales are ready for the new century, more confident about ourselves than in the past.
  Nobody can pretend that it was a decisive yes vote, but as my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) said—their contributions yesterday were most welcome—most no campaigners accept the will of the people. As the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) added, only English Conservative Front Benchers want to rewrite the rules of democracy by insisting that a narrow yes vote is somehow really a no vote. Even Conservatives in Wales accept the result and the need to respond constructively to the Bill. Notably, Lord Roberts of Conwy voted no, but he is not trying to turn the clock back and has advanced some interesting ideas.
  The truth is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) argued, the result was an historic achievement, overcoming old divisions between north and south; English and Welsh speakers; and industrial and rural areas—divisions that were so ruthlessly and contemptibly exploited by the Tory-led no campaigners, who appealed so nakedly to fear and grubby parochialism.
  The Tories wanted Wales trapped in the past—weak, divided, and cowering before power centralised in London—but the Government led a broad popular coalition, spanning all parties, to secure a swing of 30 per cent. since the ill-fated referendum of 1979. Significantly, that swing was bigger than in Scotland, even surpassing Labour's 1 May landslide. It was a vote not for separatism but for democracy: for decentralising power from Whitehall to the people and modernising our almost mediaeval British constitution.
  It was not a shock to see the Conservatives opposing this extension of democracy: the shock would have been if they had done otherwise. They opposed every great
  816
  constitutional reform—votes for working-class citizens; votes for women; reform of the House of Lords—so why should they make an exception of Wales? Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) pointed out, they also opposed the establishment of the post of Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Development Agency.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Why is the Minister so anxious about the vote? He attacks everyone left, right and centre, and the witchfinder general of Wales tries to extirpate Labour Members who voted no. There must have been large numbers of those—250,000 more than the Conservative vote. What is behind all this? There was a massive rejection on the day: 75 per cent., given the chance to vote yes, did not do so. The Minister is trying to make 75 per cent. seem insubstantial as against his own 25 per cent. What is it all about?
  Mr. Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's spirited attempt to prop up the empty Opposition Benches. I was merely replying to points raised by Opposition Members in yesterday's debate, in accordance with the courtesies of the House.
  The Tories wanted to be able to inflict Redwooditis on Wales again, if they returned to government. We want that disease banished forever from Wales, so that never again can the likes of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) trample all over the people of Wales. We all thought that Redwooditis, a form of political BSE, had been made safe by slaughtering more than half the Tory Members at the general election—it was indeed a radical cull, strictly in line with the rules of public health and safety—but we discover that it has not been eliminated.
  Redwooditis has remained deeply embedded in the spinal cord of the Tory party and has emerged among Opposition Front Benchers as they stumble groggily through the devolution debate. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is the Tories' voice for the valleys; Wales is safe with an Essex boy, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin); and then we have the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the Marquis of Lothian, who is the answer to the West Lothian question personified.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: Will the Minister confirm that Devizes, and indeed Scotland, where I come from, are rather nearer to Wales than South Africa?
  Mr. Hain: Not nearer than Neath, which I represent—with a record majority at the general election, I might add—but I none the less welcome any more spirited interventions from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Bill as a "dangerous dog's breakfast"; I do not know what a safe dog's breakfast might be. He gave a curiously lacklustre performance: perhaps, as a closet devolutionist going back 20 years, his heart is not really in it. By contrast, his Back-Bench colleagues, the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made thoughtful contributions, and I look forward to hearing more from them in Committee.

  817
  I notice that the right hon. Member for Devizes has promised a secondreferendum on devolution. If he does not mind, I will give him some comradely advice: referendums are not that easy to win. I speak from personal experience. If the Tories ever won another general election, I would relish the prospect of fighting a no campaign to keep the national assembly for Wales, but I offer a prediction: that second referendum will be yet another Tory broken promise. We got used to them in government, and now we are getting used to them in opposition.
  Look what happened to the Tory Leader's promise of a referendum last time: the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who treated Wales as a youth training scheme for his leadership of the party, promised a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty; but that was in June, and we all know that six months is a long time in Tory politics. Last week, the Tory leadership refused to table an amendment calling for a referendum when the treaty was put before the House. The new Tory leader's motto is, "U-turn if you want to, this man's definitely for turning."
  I see from yesterday's The Daily Telegraph that the Leader of the Opposition is now trying to get Scottish Tories to
  "break with the past and reinvent themselves"
  by changing their name following their disastrous election result. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like new Labour."] We will come to that.
  One of the Tory leader's advisers told the newspaper:
  The old name is potentially damaged goods".
  All sorts of new names are being canvassed: the Scottish Unionist party; the Progressive Unionist party; and even the Democratic Conservative party, which I would have thought a contradiction in terms. I am sure that, if that new thinking is applied to Scotland, Wales will not be left out. Perhaps I can be helpful: what about the Tories calling themselves new Conservatives? In Wales, that could be Ceidwadwyr Newydd, or Toriad Newydd: real vote winners.
  Mind you, it is not surprising that they are having this trouble, as the Tories' name came from a gang of 17th-century Irish outlaws known as the bog trotters. Perhaps that explains the incontinent rumblings of the right hon. Member for Devizes yesterday.
  Long after our Tory shadows in opposition have faded from memory, my right hon. Friend's name will be entrenched in Welsh history as the person who delivered devolution for Wales. Perhaps future generations will salute him by demanding a St. Ronald's day; I am sure that Opposition Members will support that.
  The Bill is not only about democracy. Wales is, by United Kingdom or European standards, a poor country. Our gross domestic product per head is 18 per cent. lower than England's: a gap that has widened over the past 21 years. Average earnings are 11 per cent. lower than in England, whereas in 1979 they were only 3 per cent. lower. Youth unemployment, at more than 19 per cent., is almost half as high again as in England.
  Economic inactivity rates for those of working age, especially men, are higher than in England. Health is worse and so is poverty. While some areas, notably the south-east and the north-east of Wales, have prospered,
  818
  others have stagnated at best. That is the dreadful legacy that the Tories want to maintain with the old style of government.
  The Tories want Wales to be poor and divided. We want Wales to be a new, modern world-beating country, united for the first time through an assembly that will ensure that the needs of all parts of Wales are fully understood and fairly represented, a point eloquently argued by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Minister leaves the question of poverty, could he clarify something? We received in the Library today a document entitled, "Principles to govern determination of the block budgets for the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales". In paragraph 8b, on the Barnett formula, it states:
  "action taken by the Scottish or Welsh administrations in a devolved area has knock-on costs for the UK Government or vice versa."
  Can he explain the background of the statement that has appeared?
  Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend always asks penetrating and well-researched questions. I think that he will find that the answer is contained in the memorandum to which he referred.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was witty and eloquent. I assure him that the Secretary of State will seriously consider his generous offer to construct the assembly building all by himself.
  The Tories want to maintain the politically corrupt Tory quango state, which accounts for more than a third of the Welsh Office budget. We want the quangos abolished or merged, and all made subject to democratic accountability through the assembly, which will have sweeping powers to reform them. The Tories want local authorities strangled; the Bill offers a new partnership to empower local government, as my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) argued.
  Meanwhile, we are building an integrated Welsh Development Agency for the whole of Wales. Tai Cymru will be merged with the Welsh Office. Health service trusts will be reduced in number and reshaped. Cardiff Bay development corporation will be wound up. As my hon. Friends the Members for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Gower (Mr. Caton) argued, that amounts to a fundamental shift in the way public services are delivered in Wales.
  Most significant is the merger into the WDA of the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales. The Bill creates for the first time a single economic development agency for Wales. It will remove the complexity, confusion and waste that result from existing arrangements and give the assembly a powerful vehicle to improve economic prosperity across Wales. In partnership with local authorities, the business community and many others, the new WDA will have a pivotal role in developing and delivering the objectives of economic growth and prosperity for the whole of Wales. It will also be charged with delivering local solutions for local businesses and communities in the different parts of Wales.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: How does the Minister square that with the statement this morning in

  819
  the Welsh Affairs Committee by Mr. Chris Barber of the Federation of Small Businesses of Wales that the merger of the DBRW into the WDA would have a catastrophic effect?
  Mr. Hain: That statement has not been repeated by many, if any, business men across Wales. They see the enormous advantages to Welsh businesses, small and large, of a unified powerhouse agency, especially with the development of English regional development agencies, which I welcome. I am sure that Mr. Barber does not speak for the whole of business in Wales.
  The all-Wales remit of the new agency will tackle inequalities in investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) pointed out in the Welsh Grand Committee last month, inward investment has created 12,280 jobs in Newport, Cardiff and Caerphilly but only 43 in Conwy, Pembrokeshire and Denbighshire. At least in part, that reflects the democratic deficit that Wales has endured for far too long.
  Only by bringing the quangos, and especially the enlarged WDA, under the control of a democratic assembly representing the whole of Wales can the needs of areas that have lagged so far behind, particularly in the rural north and west, be properly addressed. To do that, the new organisation will need a strong regional structure, with boundaries closely aligned with those of the reconstituted training and enterprise councils, the economic forums and the strong regional committees for the assembly that are established by the Bill, a matter rightly stressed by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) yesterday. The WDA-led powerhouse will be equipped to spearhead our drive for a world-class Welsh economy for the 21st century, and subject to the Bill's passage, will be fully operational by autumn next year. The Bill is therefore the vehicle for not only the political but the economic regeneration of Wales.
  The assembly created by the Bill will be a modern institution, accessible to the whole of Wales, in keeping with its mission to serve the whole of Wales. In that respect, I stress the importance of the Secretary of State's advisory committee. It is open to new ideas and suggestions for how business, the trade unions and voluntary groups—from women's organisations to school governors—wish to relate to the assembly. We want to create a new political culture in Wales, a new participatory democracy.
  We also intend to pioneer a new digital democracy. The assembly will be designed to make use of new technology, not only in members' offices but in the chamber and externally, to link up with the outside world. I realise that the right hon. Member for Devizes has a problem pronouncing the word "digital", but if he wants I shall show him how to spell it afterwards.
  The Bill ushers in an exciting new era for Wales. It is no surprise that the Tories oppose it. History teaches us that the Tories, through the English Tory establishment, always respond in a reactionary way to demands for reform. The familiar pattern is being played out before us over a Welsh Assembly. First, they rubbish the case. Secondly, they resist it, often uncompromisingly. Then, when they see that they are losing the battle, they slide into the third phase of trying to co-opt the pressure for
  820
  change, as shown by last year's proposals to beef up the role of the Welsh Grand Committee, as if that could substitute for genuine devolution. Fourthly and finally, they are forced to cave in to the will of the people. When that happens, as it surely will, none of them will ever admit to having opposed a Welsh Assembly in the first place.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the chance to speak on the second day of the Second Reading debate. It is wonderful to follow the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). It is so good to hear the Neath accent again—although, strangely, despite my 30 years of living in Swansea, I had quite forgotten that it sounded like that. When I refer later in my speech to inward investment, I shall not be referring to the hon. Member for Neath.
  This afternoon, I shall touch on issues that were debated yesterday and introduce other matters that need to be addressed in Committee. We have been criticised by the three pro-devolution parties for being negative and for acting as an Opposition. I make no apologies for doing so. I regret that we are the Opposition but we recognise that we are the Opposition. We are the only party that speaks on behalf of the three out of four people in Wales who did not endorse the proposals. Much has been made of the twisting of the figures of 18 September into a resounding endorsement, which they were not.
  The result was not brilliant for any of us. At just over 50 per cent., the turnout was down from 58.3 per cent. in 1979, when I voted no in Swansea. The split between yes and no could not have been closer—just 0.6 per cent., with 11 areas voting for and 11 against. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said yesterday, Offa's dyke seems to be moving west.
  It would have been better if the percentage majority in favour had been in double figures. That would have settled the issue once and for all, but it did not and it remains unsettled. The Prime Minister knew that it was not a brilliant endorsement because the day after the referendum, on the steps of No. 10, he said that he would need to address the fears of the large number of people who did not endorse the devolution proposals. What action has he taken? The Welsh Assembly is to be called the National Assembly for Wales, cynulliad cenedlaethol Cymru. A name change is always worth a try. As new Labour knows, it sometimes works. But more than a name change will be needed to sell the merits of this case.
  The other major change was that the assembly bandwagon, which was due to roll in to a town near you in England, rolled backwards into Wales. It has been derailed. So the English have a great deal for which to thank the Welsh, but the Welsh have little for which to thank the Prime Minister.
  Another change, we are told, is that there is to be an advisory committee which will help in setting up the assembly. We are told that it will represent all political shades. That would have been a step in the right direction, had the Secretary of State asked the parties for nominations, as the Secretary of State for Scotland is doing. We were told yesterday that the Conservatives had been consulted, but neither the shadow Secretary of State nor I have been asked to suggest a name. We have checked with a number of our representatives from Wales and they have not been asked to put forward a name.

  821
  We have tabled a parliamentary question to ask exactly whom the Secretary of State for Wales consulted. We look forward to the answer. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to intervene now and tell us whom he consulted about the nomination.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I am more than happy to confirm that I have received a parliamentary question from the hon. Gentleman and, of course, I shall give it careful consideration and let him have a full reply. The point that I make is the one that I made in yesterday's debate to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I invited him to the Welsh Office at the same time as I invited the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). They came and discussed matters with me, but the right hon. Gentleman chose not to come. In his absence, I could hardly have a consultation with him.
  Mr. Evans: This simply will not do. As even the Western Mail says, recent events do not get this whole thing off to a good start—and that newspaper was pro-devolution at the very beginning. The Secretary of State has a cheek to talk about inclusivity when he has just given that sort of answer.
  I was in the room when that telephone conversation took place. The Secretary of State talked about trying to force his own nomination on to the Welsh Grand Committee. Not content with choosing the Conservative nominee on the advisory body, he wants to choose one of the Welsh nominees on the Welsh Grand Committee. This is a strange and twisted form of democracy. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say whether the nominee to serve on the advisory body will be the hereditary peer mentioned in today's Western Mail.
  Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman was with the right hon. Member for Devizes at the time of that conversation, he will be in a position to confirm that I invited the right hon. Gentleman to come to see me at the Welsh Office to discuss a range of issues that were likely to be before Parliament this Session. It is a matter of regret to me that the right hon. Gentleman declined that invitation. The fact that the other two party leaders accepted my invitation and have been involved in the consultation process is a demonstration of their wisdom, and the foolishness and short-sightedness of the right hon. Gentleman who leads for the Conservative party on these matters.
  Mr. Evans: The major difference is that the representatives from the other two political parties are behaving as if they were sitting on the Government Benches. We already know that the Secretary of State for Wales likes to close down debate in his own party. Now he is trying to dictate who should be the Conservative nominees on various bodies. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to confirm whether the nominee is the hereditary peer mentioned in today's newspaper? Is that his Conservative nomination for the advisory committee?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman obviously has such a thin speech that he needs me to pad it out for him. I can confirm to him that the first meeting of the advisory committee will take place in Cardiff on Friday.
  822
  All members of the committee will be present and their CVs will be made available. The whole of Wales, including the hon. Gentleman, will have the opportunity then to find out precisely who sits on the committee.
  Mr. Evans: There the Secretary of State goes again, marginalising the House of Commons. He has been given the opportunity to tell it the membership of the Committee today, but no, the information will be spin-doctored away in the media. He should not talk to us about inclusivity.
  Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman wants to take the debate a stage further, perhaps I should explain that the committee will be my advisory committee. The purpose of it will be to consult people in Wales and offer advice to me.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: But you are the Secretary of State for Wales.
  Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall explain that the purpose of the advisory committee is to offer advice to me so that I can offer advice to the statutory commission which will prepare the standing orders. The committee will offer advice to me as Secretary of State, not to the House of Commons.
  Mr. Evans: Then let us have no more pretence that the advisory committee will represent all shades of political opinion. Let us make the position clear to the Secretary of State for Wales. He seems to be having a little difficulty here. As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) put it yesterday, all that we are asking for is a bit of chwarae teg, or fair play, on this. We do not want to hear that all political shades are being included when the Conservative party has not been asked for its nomination.
  The Secretary of State for Wales has an opportunity today to seek some sort of consensus and a step forward. He was told by Lord Roberts that we were expecting a letter asking for the Conservative party to put forward a nominee. We are still awaiting that letter. If we receive it, we will put forward a serious suggestion.
  If the Secretary of State carries on in this fashion, I must make it clear to everyone in the Chamber and outside that the person whom the Secretary of State has chosen does not represent us and has not been chosen by us. The person has been selected by the Secretary of State for Wales. He does not and will not speak for the Conservative party. He will speak only for the Secretary of State for Wales. I ask the media to take note of this: that nominee, whoever he may be, will never be accepted by us as a spokesman on our behalf.
  Mr. Davies: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is far wide of the mark. The people who sit on the advisory committee will not represent anyone. They will not represent political parties or vested interests.
  Mr. Ancram: They do in Scotland.
  Mr. Davies: Of course it is different in Scotland. The members bring to the committee their personal expertise and point of view. They do not represent vested political interests.
  Mr. Evans: Let us make it clear that there is no Conservative party representative on the committee.

  823
  The Secretary of State can ask us to put forward a name. We will do so. But no—all that we have heard today is, "This is my advisory committee." The Secretary of State should not talk about inclusivity or the spread of political views.
  Let us move on, as it seems that we shall make little progress on the issue of the committee. It has been pointed out to me that yesterday the Secretary of State for Wales said that there was a Conservative representative on the committee. He is not a Conservative representative and he does not speak for us. I move on.
  The other point that I wish to make relates to the scrutiny of the Bill. We are not in the business of wrecking the Bill, but it contains more holes than a Swiss cheese and we, along with other right hon. and hon. Members, will seek to fill them in and improve the Bill. Let us follow the convention and take this important constitutional matter on the Floor of the House. The Secretary of State has said that he will table amendments of his own. Labour Members—of varying persuasions, no doubt—will want to table amendments. Let us not steamroller the Bill through a small Committee Upstairs as if it were perfect. This is another matter on which we can make progress, but only if the Secretary of State will meet us half way.
  I now turn to the siting of the Assembly and the farcical nature of this shabby, sorry exercise. I know that it is the pantomime season, but recent events are at a new level. Where shall we site the assembly? In Cardiff city hall, of course. "Oh, no, you won't," says Russell Goodway. "Oh, yes, we will," says the Secretary of State—and now it is likely that the assembly will not be there. All that is missing is the familiar ring of, "It's behind you." The Secretary of State must wish that this whole sorry business was behind him. This does not bode well for an harmonious relationship between the assembly and the Secretary of State for Wales, assuming that he still holds that office when it starts up—I am generous enough to assume that he will be.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: What possible relevance do the hon. Gentleman's comments have to the Bill and the debate today?
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman made a lengthy speech yesterday. The same question could be asked about much of his speech.
  The siting of the assembly was mentioned time and time again in yesterday's debate. If we cannot get that right, what can we get right? The Labour leader of the capital's authority is at loggerheads with the Secretary of State, whose warm, magnetic charm has, unusually, failed him on this occasion. We are now witnessing an unseemly, squalid row.
  Mr. Hain: I note that the hon. Gentleman is even laughing at his own lines. Is he suggesting that my right hon. Friend should have agreed to pay more for Cardiff city hall than the independently valued market price?
  Mr. Evans: No, of course not. I find it peculiar that everyone thought that a deal had been done with the Labour leader of Cardiff city council. Everyone thought
  824
  that the assembly would be based at Cardiff city hall, but after the referendum, after the people of Wales had decided, we found out that there was no such deal. It all seems rather strange to us.
  We are naturally taking a keen interest in exactly where the new assembly will be sited. It does not bode very well for the assembly's future if, at the outset, a Labour leader of a local authority cannot get on with a Labour Secretary of State for Wales. What happens if one of them is replaced by someone from another political party?
  An unconsultative document has been rushed out to seek suggestions about which lucky area will house what some see as a gravy train. And who can blame all the Welsh authorities for fighting to house something that will bring in its wake public service jobs and all that that entails? Even my old home town, the proud city of Swansea, has become entrenched in the bidding process.
  What would have happened if the row about the assembly's location had broken out before the referendum? After all, Cardiff voted no on 18 September and it seems as though it is still voting no today. The Conservative party believes that the financial estimates in the White Paper must be adhered to—after all, the £17 million start-up costs and running costs of between £15 million and £20 million are high enough.
  That money must either be saved by abolishing the quangos—the Bill only makes a small start on that—or will have to come from money that would otherwise be spent on front-line services such as doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen. The average nurse costs £325 a week; the average policeman costs £491 a week; and the average teacher costs £432 a week. The price of the average politician in the assembly has not been settled by the Bill, but after the initial salary has been agreed, it will subsequently be set by the members of the assembly.
  We know what will happen, because we need only look at the expenses charged by Welsh Labour local authorities when they have a say about them. We will scrutinise those costs carefully. That does not make us penny-pinching, it means that we will hold the Government to account to ensure that they keep to the spending limits presented to the Welsh people.
  To help towards that end, we will oppose the ludicrous amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats to increase the number of assembly politicians from 60 to 70 at a cost of £750,000. We must remember that the areas represented by the Liberal Democrats voted no on 18 September. They did so not because they wanted more politicians but because they wanted fewer. With such crackpot thinking from the Liberal Democrats, come the next general election those people will want fewer Liberal Democrat representatives at Westminster—and so do we.
  The Liberal Democrats have a long tradition of support for devolution and—
  Mr. Richard Livsey rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Evans: One would think that that party would make sensible suggestions about the Bill. How long does one need to sort out one's plans?
  Mr. Livsey rose—
  Mr. Evans: I am more than happy to give way.
  Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman has implied that the majority of Liberal Democrats voted no on 18 September. What is his evidence? There is none to prove that that is so.
  Mr. Evans: The areas broadly represented by the Liberal Democrats voted no. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends know that, because I appeared on a television programme with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) until 4 o'clock on the night of the referendum. Nobody was less pleased than he was when his area's result came through.
  Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman will remember my enormous relief that my prediction about a heavier defeat turned out to be unfounded. Would he agree that it is possible that the Liberal Democrats in those two constituencies voted yes while others may not have been persuaded?
  Mr. Evans: That argument may get the hon. Gentleman to sleep at night, but it does not wash with any of us on the Conservative Benches.
  The Liberal Democrats' suggestion that there should be an extra 10 seats in the assembly at an additional cost of £750,000 a year is entirely inconsistent with their claim to be a responsible, third party. It is, however, entirely consistent with their position as a high-tax, high-spend party. Perhaps those extra 10 seats would be paid for out of their mystic 1p tax rise. Never has there been a better return on a penny spent—well, almost never.
  The Liberal Democrats have joined in the debate on what to call the assembly. The Scots will have a legislative body with tax-raising powers—that is called a Parliament. The Liberal Democrats want to call the Welsh Assembly, which, thankfully, will not have primary legislative powers or tax-raising abilities, a Senedd, which is Welsh for a Parliament. Let us not insult the Welsh any more than they have been insulted already. Such a suggestion is an insult to their intelligence—an assembly is what it is and what it should be called.
  Let us consider the issue of proportional representation—or, rather, unproportional misrepresentation, as the proposal is neither a true system of PR nor will be representative of the wishes of the Welsh people. It will cause confusion to the masses. People will not know to whom they should bring their constituency problems. Should they write to their elected constituency Member of Parliament—a process that works extremely well at Westminster—to their constituency member of the assembly, or to an assembly member who is elected under the list system? Will those latter two representatives have the same authority, or will the constituency assembly member's word carry more weight? Can the Secretary of State tell me the answer, or has he not thought it through, as he has failed to think through so much connected with the issue?
  If the proposed voting system is introduced, we will have such a complicated system of elections throughout the country and in Wales that I am sure the people of Wales will be turned off by it and utterly bewildered and bemused by the sheer variety of voting systems in use in the United Kingdom. It is almost as though the Labour party is determined to make Britain a showcase for different PR systems—for the assembly, for London, for Europe, and perhaps at local elections. I know that it is also considering the voting procedures for Westminster. Its proposals will offer a fabulous case study for political studies undergraduates and a nightmare for the man on the Clapham omnibus or on the No. 12 bus to Swansea city centre who is trying to take part in an election or write to his representative with a problem.
  826
  The Secretary of State claims that the additional member system will be good news for the Conservative party. I thank him sincerely for thinking of us when he made those plans, but if that is the case, it makes our principled stand a moral one as well. Why? Because we believe that the new system will only add to Welsh nationalism and anti-English sentiments, bringing nearer by the day the total break-up of the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) feared in his speech yesterday. We will fight against that tooth and nail, for the good of the Welsh people and for the good of the people of the United Kingdom.
  We already know that Plaid Cymru sees the assembly as the journey and not the destination. It is not content with the half of the cake that is currently on offer to it. It will come back for the other half soon.
  We will make a number of suggestions about the proposed funding arrangements for the assembly, as stated in clause 80, which is a classic of its kind. 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's all right then, isn't it? But as Secretary of State, with his fading glory and influence, is eclipsed by every other spending Department, what real security will there be for the assembly? Yesterday, we heard in speech after speech from those on the alliance Benches about how the assembly will improve education, how it will revitalise the health service, how new jobs will flood in and how roads will be built that will make the Roman roads look like dirt tracks. Wales will become the most powerful country on the planet thanks to the assembly—and all with no extra money.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already said that the Barnett formula will stay. The can of worms has now been opened, however, and the English regions have woken up to the formula's financial implications. Per capita spending in Wales is £4,352 compared with spending in England of £3,743—a difference of £609. If Wales were to be self-financing, the basic rate of tax would be 45p in the pound.
  The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) has said that the Government must get rid of that formula and give the money to England. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) believes that London should get all the extra cash. The Barnett formula has not been enshrined in the Bill, nor is the element of needs funding. We will seek assurances about that in Committee. The last thing that Labour Members will want is for the assembly to be tempted to top-slice revenue support grant money to pay for their land of milk and honey.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Gentleman, as hon. Member for Ribble Valley, will be aware of how important defence procurement is in overall public expenditure. His constituency probably receives more public expenditure in defence procurement per head than any other constituency in the western world. He has made himself known for lobbying for more public expenditure for Ribble Valley and for his constituents who work at British Aerospace factories in the Preston area. I think that he will accept those points. Does he

  827
  accept that—if we add defence procurement to domestic public expenditure—Wales receives 5.1 per cent. of identifiable UK public expenditure, whereas it has 5.0 per cent. of the population? Will he comment on those figures and relate them to the argument that he has been making?
  Mr. Evans: No, because the Barnett formula was created to ensure that there was a needs formula to protect the needs of the Welsh people and the Scottish people. Since the Government's devolution proposals have come to light with the referendums, a can of worms has been opened, and English people and English Members of Parliament are asking why so much money is going to Wales and to Scotland and not to their own areas. Such a debate is bound to ensue. If there is a review of the Barnett formula, we do not know what the outcome might be, because we have no guarantees. We do know, however, that hon. Members will fight hard to ensure that they win as much money as possible for their own areas, based on the needs of those areas.
  Mr. Hain: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his understanding of the Barnett formula is that it is needs-based? Is that what he is saying?,
  Mr. Evans: Population is used as a basis of determining need. In Committee, we will ensure that the needs basis will be continued into the future—something of which there is no guarantee. The Secretary of State is not dealing with the matter in the Bill, although he is doing so in the explanatory and financial memorandum— which, as he knows, has no status. One of the fears of the people of Wales is that, if there is a review, there could be a review downwards. What will happen then?
  Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am sorry to detain the House, but that is sheer gibberish. He does not understand the Barnett formula, and I urge him to study it. As he is talking about needs, I should point out that Wales's GDP is 18 per cent. less than the English average. GDP in south-east England, which he mentioned, is 14 per cent. above the English average. If there were a genuinely needs-based assessment of resource distribution in Great Britain, Wales would do very well in it.
  Mr. Evans: I am very pleased that that reassures the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. I assure him that a can of worms has been opened. Has he considered the demands that will be made by the politicians who will be elected to the London assembly? They will demand a big slice of the cake. Whereas Labour and other alliance Members think only of how large their slice of the cake will be, Conservative Members fight to ensure that the cake becomes larger, so that everyone can have a greater slice of it.
  Part of Labour Members' problem is their inability to answer the question of what will happen if the RSG settlement is top-sliced. We have 22 local authorities in Wales, and we have already seen—thanks to last week's announcement—a 12 per cent. council tax increase. The people of Wales will look back rather nostalgically at such increases if there is top slicing of the RSG, because the resulting shortage will be made up in only one way—in ever higher council taxes.
  828
  I should hate to fail to deal in my speech with the role of the Secretary of State. We already know that the current incumbent of that office moves in mysterious ways, but what will he do after the assembly is established? The Bill states only that he will transfer his powers to the assembly—
  Mr. Ron Davies: Most of them.
  Mr. Evans: Yes, most of his powers.
  The Secretary of State will also be able to visit and speak in the assembly. But who will speak for Wales? Will it be the assembly's First Secretary, or will it be the Secretary of State—the First Secretary's secretary? If the new leader of the assembly is Russell Goodway, relations just might be strained. If it were the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), I predict that there would be some friction. Problems would result also if the position were held by many other people. As the botched job on siting the assembly has shown, embarrassment and stalemate are a likely result.
  The House must probe more carefully who will do what in the assembly's operation and ascertain more carefully its relationship with Europe. Matters that are so important that they must receive careful scrutiny include the assembly's visiting rights to important meetings of the Council of Ministers, the Secretary of State's residual powers over money, and the role of the new regional committees.
  All we know about the regional committees is that they will be established in north Wales and in other areas. If such a device is supposed to calm the people of north Wales, heaven help them. The south Wales-dominated assembly will draw up the boundaries; it will determine how it is advised by the committee; and it may then ignore that advice. The committees sound like a sop, and Conservative Members will press for greater clarification in Committee.
  What about clause 47, which deals in
  "equality of opportunity for all people"?
  It is fine to pay lip service to that goal, but, as our reasoned amendment states, Conservative Members are not satisfied that the assembly will provide an opportunity for all the people of Wales to be properly represented and protected.
  Conservative Members will be looking for assurances on the £500-million question: what type of loan will it be? Will it be a recipe for the assembly to borrow on the never-never to fund its raison d'etre, buying instant popularity that will disappear in a flash as the bill lands on people's mats? We still hear concerns expressed by businesses in Wales, which are represented by the Confederation of British Industry, the North Wales Business Club and the Federation of Wales Small Businesses.
  Another strong aspect of the Union from which people have benefited is the Welsh Development Agency's achievement in attracting inward investment. The fact is that 20 per cent. of all UK inward investment goes to Wales. Will Wales and the battle to channel inward projects through the President of the Board of Trade be disadvantaged by her new concordat? How will we control nationalist fervour for increased regionalisation in the United Kingdom, breaking the bond that unites us?

  829
  The assembly's merits will have to be sold to a rightly suspicious and sceptical public. Will the assembly help Welsh farmers in their crisis? No. Will it stop the £1,000 fee for students—which has resulted in an estimated 9 per cent. drop in student numbers attending university next year? No. Will the assembly safeguard a single inward investment project, reduce class sizes or put an extra bobby on the beat? No, no and no.
  Conservative Members have genuine fears about the experiment, as do three out of four Welsh voters. We have a right to voice our concerns and fears, because, after all, it is our country, too. Britain has become a melting pot, in which the English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish live in each other's pocket. Each of us is proud of our culture, but we are respectful of the differences that help to make Britain great. We must resist and fight anything that throws away what we have achieved or damages the cement that bonds us together.
  We are the party of the Union. We remain the party of the Union. We will not let Wales and Britain down.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I tell the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that anyone with a sense of the history of this century should be impressed by the amazing role, function and achievements of the Conservative and Unionist party. Because of those achievements, I should have thought that, from that Dispatch Box, the House would have heard expressed a huge amount of humility about the way in which that party has reduced a great institution to the rump it has become over the past 18 years.
  The Conservative and Unionist party is no longer a party of the Union. It does not have one seat representing a Welsh or a Scottish constituency. How can it possibly claim still to be the Conservative and Unionist party? The Conservative party—a great traditional unionist party—has managed its affairs in such a way that it has been driven out of two of the three parts of the Union. I should have thought that, if nothing else, there should have come from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley at the Dispatch Box a sense of humility, a degree of modesty and a realisation that, wherever we stand and whatever criticisms we might make of the Bill—I intend to make one or two myself—the Conservatives were totally rejected at the last election in Wales and Scotland.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Conservatives' lack of representation in Wales and Scotland and our ability to be the party of the Union in those areas, is he saying that the Labour party is the party of the Union in Northern Ireland? If so, which party in Northern Ireland represents its views most closely?
  Mr. Rowlands: I understand that the Labour party does not fight elections formally as the Labour party in Northern Ireland and that the other parties follow the same policy, but that is not relevant to the point that from the Conservatives' Front-Bench spokesman should have come rather more humility than we heard today. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley contributed little, either to his party's cause, or to the debate on the Bill.
  I have no wish to revisit the referendum result, save to say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that we should be as concerned about the fact that 50 per cent.
  830
  of the population did not vote as about the 49 per cent. of those who did vote who voted no. If I heard this remark once, I heard it dozens of times during the campaign: "We did not really know enough about it—we did not understand the implications." We should all accept that, during the referendum campaign and in the preceding months, we failed collectively to get across to the public the issues and the implications of the proposals. Now, with the Bill before us, we have a chance to do just that. We should take this opportunity not only to explore the implications ourselves, but to communicate them to a wider audience—the Welsh public.
  I hope that, in my next remarks, I am not treading on contentious territory for Labour, although I am happy to tread on it as far as the Conservatives are concerned. I hope to gain some measure of, if not consensus, at least understanding. I suspect that, among the 50 per cent. who did not vote and the 49 per cent. of voters who voted no, people were saying—albeit not coherently—that they were uneasy about what was going to happen. There was an air of queasiness surrounding the relationship between Wales and Britain.
  The Welsh-British relationship is an enduring and important relationship—one that is felt strongly, no matter how Welsh we are. In constituencies such as mine and in other parts of the country, people were worried that that relationship would be influenced or affected negatively. During our debates on the Bill, we should hold that concern centrally in our minds. I did not hear it from the lips of any of my constituents, but I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) uttered a memorable phrase when he talked about the unbundling of the constitution. In some curious way, that was what people were trying to say—they wanted devolution, but did not want the constitution to be unbundled. It is that careful balance of devolution and remaining part of the United Kingdom that is central to our debates.
  I intend to address on Second Reading two central relationships arising from the Bill: first, the assembly-Whitehall-Secretary of State relationship and, secondly, the assembly-Westminster relationship. There are other issues I care about in the Bill, but they can be dealt with in Committee.
  In respect of the first relationship, I read with great interest the latest document from the Institute of Welsh Affairs. I am astonished that Conservative Members have not read the documents produced by the institute and thought about the arguments presented in them. I find that, when reading many of the institute's documents about devolution, all I can hear is the sound of axes grinding. I heard them when reading "Making the Assembly work", but I also heard the sound of a large number of pennies dropping.
  The document, produced by a traditionally pro-devolution organisation, posed several questions about the relationships between Whitehall, the Secretary of State and the assembly. It asked:
  "To what extent will the Assembly in practice be permitted to examine policy proposals which are still being formulated by a Ministry, since it will have no formal institutional links?"
  The document continued:
  "Are all Assembly members to be treated as in the same position visa vis the Government machine as Ministers who are expected to keep confidential the discussions that precede the decisions as to the exact contents of a Bill?"

  831
  Those are not nit-picking Committee points; they are questions that go to the heart of a vital issue—the relationships between an assembly and Whitehall and an assembly and central Government.
  The document went further, stating:
  "Against this background the Secretary of State may be drawn into the role of becoming the main link between the Assembly and Whitehall, with a consequent weakening of the direct role of the Assembly and its civil servants in negotiating on policy matters with Whitehall departments."
  I shall dwell later on that serious and fundamental issue of how the assembly is to relate to the Whitehall and Westminster machinery of government. It is little wonder that the section concluded:
  "With all these issues and questions we are operating in uncharted territory involving constitutional innovations that will need clarification and perhaps certain statutory guarantees."
  The issue is of fundamental concern to us all: how is the assembly to relate to central Government?
  When those questions are asked, and when I hear references such as I heard yesterday to concordats between the assembly and Whitehall Departments, I ask myself whether it is intended that assembly officials and possibly assembly members—who will owe an allegiance to the very different political organisation that is to be known as the national assembly for Wales—are somehow to become enmeshed in Whitehall policy making. If so, how are Whitehall officials to relate to assembly officials?
  For example, if members or officials of the assembly enmeshed in the process of confidential discussions on the preparation of a Bill or a major policy decision discover things they feel are not to the best advantage to the membership of the Welsh Assembly, is it to be their duty immediately to break whatever confidentiality applies and report back to the assembly? What is the relationship to be? It is indeed uncharted territory, and it has not yet been explained in this Second Reading debate how the system is to work. I assume that it will be explained in the form of the concordats. If so, the quicker we see them, the better. This is not a marginal issue—it is a matter of fundamental and central concern.
  I have been doing some thinking about the practical and political problems that might give rise to anxieties about the relationships between the assembly and Whitehall, and the assembly and central Government. My worries may seem at first sight rather prosaic.
  There is, first, the question of standards in health and food safety. Section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990 is a case in point. The statutory instruments made under that section could scarcely be called politically sexy, one might think. Hon. Members may not feel that they are the meat and drink of British politics—yet it will be under section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990 that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will, on 16 December, ban beef on the bone.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: That is meat and drink.
  Mr. Rowlands: It certainly is.
  We need to know, therefore, how such an issue would be dealt with if it were re-enacted in a few years' time. What, in that event, will be the function and role of the assembly? My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli
  832
  fastened on this point during an exchange late yesterday evening, which I read with particular interest since I was meaning to raise it myself. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intervened to say:
  "matters relating to animal or human health are likely to be reserved."—[Official Report, 8 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 755.]
  I have seen no such statement anywhere else. What else will be reserved to the Secretary of State? These arguments are not marginal: they are central to the relationship between the Government and the assembly.
  Many of the supporters of devolution tend to oversell it. It may be thought that the difficulties facing Welsh farmers at the moment could be dealt with by powers that the assembly will have, but it turns out that certain decisions on food will not belong to the assembly but will remain to be made by the Secretary of State jointly with the Agriculture Minister. So it appears that there will be limitations to the assembly's ability to help farming communities.
  Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend's last assertion is right: no one would claim that the Welsh Assembly will have the ability to deal with matters such as BSE; at least, not by statutory action. I would, however, draw to my hon. Friend's attention two important principles. First, the whole devolution construct is based on the premise that the powers that I exercise will be transferred to the assembly. My hon. Friend, on the other hand, is referring to powers that I exercise jointly with other Ministers. We have always made it clear that certain elements, especially to do with human and animal health, will have to be examined carefully.
  The second principle concerns the fact that the powers that I exercise jointly, or retain to be exercised jointly or to transfer back to another Department, will be specified in a transfer order. In Committee, the House will have the opportunity to see exactly how the powers are divided up, during discussion of the transfer order.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am glad of that statement, but these are not matters of mere detail. They are fundamental, as they define the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales at Westminster and in Whitehall and the functions that are to be devolved. That means that we shall need a list or schedule of reserved powers as soon as possible.
  Let me test my right hon. Friend with a couple of other examples. The National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Admission Charges) Order 1988 may not sound like the stuff of high politics, but it determines who will be exempt from prescription charges. is that a United Kingdom responsibility or will it be the subject of devolution? If the assembly wanted to be more generous in this regard, could it be? I assume not, but we need clarification.
  Clause 41 is one of the most complicated clauses in the Bill, yet it concerns the role of the assembly in secondary legislation. I see that the Secretary of State would like to intervene again. I certainly hope for a clear statement, soon, on exactly which reserved powers will be taken by the Secretary of State and which will be transferred to the assembly.
  Mr. Davies: There will be no statement on reserved powers, because the scheme that we envisage works on a transfer of powers. Before the Committee stage begins,

  833
  a draft order will be prepared so that anyone who wants to see the detail can do so. It will be a hefty document, I can assure my hon. Friend, and it will describe the powers that are being transferred to the assembly.
  As for my hon. Friend's example, if my recollection is correct these are powers that the Secretary of State exercises jointly. That being so, it will be a matter of judgment as to whether the powers can be transferred. In the case of national health service charges, we would want conformity between England and Wales, so it is most unlikely that such powers will appear in the transfer order.
  Mr. Rowlands: We clearly need the list as quickly as possible. It is important to define the various roles of the Secretary of State, central Government and the assembly.
  Mr. Morgan: The administrative devolution that we have had in Wales for 33 years has permitted Secretaries of State for Wales to deviate substantially from UK policy, even in international treaty obligations. There was, for instance, the well known example of "Redwooditis", as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), called it. During his period of office, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) declared a free-for-all on out-of-town shopping stores in Wales, even though the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose policy had tremendous commercial importance for all planning inspectors and inquiries, believed, following the previous Prime Minister's signing of the Rio treaty on biodiversity and global warming, that we should be against out-of-town shopping centres on principle. I would not like my hon. Friend to give the impression that none of these fudged areas are to be found under administrative devolution—things can only improve under democratic devolution.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend prompts me to move on to a fundamental point. Nonconformity is generally to be encouraged. When I had the privilege of serving in the Welsh Office, my Secretary of State told me never to conform and always to force Whitehall to make the case for conformity. That was a wonderful remit for a junior Welsh Office Minister. Subsequently, we handled the Community Land Act 1975 completely differently and created a land authority for Wales which has survived the test of time and is now to be incorporated in the new economic powerhouse—so I have always been a great supporter of the idea of nonconformity.
  A rewritten constitution has to be defined much more closely than is normal in a cohesive political administrative structure. It is much easier for Welsh civil servants to attend meetings in Whitehall because they derive their authority from the same source—they are civil servants of a set of home Government Departments and they are answerable to Ministers, at the apex of whom is a Cabinet. That will be transformed. We have to redefine the relationship that is to exist between an assembly and central Government.
  I think that that is what the discussion about concordats is all about. These are not marginal issues; these are points made by the Institute of Welsh Affairs. I hope that we can be told in the winding-up speech whether the concordats envisage enmeshing assembly civil servants, who are answerable and accountable to a completely different political institution, into the policy-making processes of Whitehall Departments. If that is to be the case, I have a
  834
  feeling that it will be a horrible recipe for confusion and difficulty over who will owe allegiance to what, in all respects. That is a fundamental point in the working of a constitution. It has worked well up to now because it has been part of a single whole. The Welsh Office and the Secretary of State are part of the collective of Government.
  Mr. Morgan: What about the former Secretary of State and international law?
  Mr. Rowlands: I assume that the former Secretary of State did not breach international treaty law. I do not know whether anybody sued him, but he must have managed either to persuade his colleagues or to operate the policy off his own bat without anybody complaining.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Rowlands: I shall give way in a moment.
  We are saying that a constitution has to be clarified in a way that was not necessary hitherto. The issues raised by the document from the Institute of Welsh Affairs—I have been thinking about them myself—are very serious. Are we saying that civil servants from the assembly will be embedded in the policy-making process of Whitehall? That is the demand, and I assume that that is what the concordats will be about.
  I will not weary the House now, but the Institute of Welsh Affairs makes a number of recommendations about a series of rights for the assembly and says that the civil servants of the assembly should have rights in the policy-making process of Whitehall. There is the potential for confusion of responsibility and accountability.
  Mr. William Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman's perusal of what has been proposed for Wales drives him to the same inescapable conclusion as the Northern Ireland Government in Stormont was driven to many years ago. If a devolved system is to work in a unitary state, it must be run by Unionists. In that context, will the Labour party in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament be a Unionist party?
  Mr. Rowlands: I believe that in a devolved system, which I support, Wales will be run by Welsh men and women who have been elected by the Welsh electorate. That is the simple and basic criterion.
  Mr. Dalyell: From his experience of ministerial office over a period of years, can my hon. Friend tell me to whom civil servants owe their career under these proposals? Is it to the Welsh Office or to Whitehall? Every civil servant is human and must have in their mind where their career is coming from.
  Mr. Rowlands: It is to the home civil service, and that is a collective. One cannot say that Welsh Office civil servants do not admirably fulfil their functions in Wales, and many might see most of their career structure to be within Welsh administration, but some people come and go. Some of the most distinguished permanent secretaries that we have had and still have come from other Departments. That will change fundamentally. The new civil service of the assembly will be accountable and

  835
  answerable to a different organisation. I can see why all these problems will arise and why we need to address them. I do not believe that they are niggling Committee points; they are fundamental and central issues.
  Mr. Jenkin: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that schedule 2 is even more misleading than he suggests? Schedule 2 refers to clause 22 only in respect of the initial powers of the assembly. Clauses 105 to 107 can be used to grab back some or all of those powers as they are deemed to be international obligations as interpreted by the Secretary of State. Clause 22(1)(a) provides
  "for the transfer to the Assembly of any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales".
  Does not that mean that some external policy that relates to Wales or tax-raising policy could be transferred to Wales? Does not that accord with what the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning was saying in an interview last week in The Scotsman? If the regions in England can become tax-raising authorities, is not that the route for Wales?
  Mr. Rowlands: I would not interpret it in that way. There are other clauses in the Bill which make it quite clear that the Secretary of State or Ministers will reserve all their rights over international relations and external relations. We can check that out in Committee, but I would not reach the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman.
  I shall move on, because I know that many of my colleagues want to speak. I touched on this issue because it fundamentally affects the role of a future Secretary of State. There is one area about which I feel passionately and in respect of which I believe total devolution would be wrong. One of the great success stories of the past 20 years and more has been inward investment. The powerful combination of the Secretary of State with a budget, power and the full authority of a Minister in a British Cabinet alongside the Welsh Development Agency has achieved much in inward investment.
  I agree with the critique of a number of my hon. Friends and Ministers that perhaps more should have been done to generate indigenous economic development of the character often mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Neath. It would be extremely damaging if we gave a future Secretary of State for Wales no money and no power in relation to inward investment. I do not believe that the transfer of all his functions—and the budget that goes with them—to an assembly is a good idea. I believe that it would damage the powerful mixture of the WDA and the Secretary of State. I am thinking of the problems we have now with some aspects of our inward investment.
  I am passionately grateful for the interest and concern shown by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The fact that he is a British Cabinet Minister and has the powers that go with it allows him to resolve some issues. I do not think that an assembly is a substitute for that combination. If there is any room for manoeuvre, I hope that my right hon. Friend will think again about the functions and role of the Secretary of State in relation to
  836
  inward investment in budgetary and functional terms. I do not want a future Secretary of State to be moneyless and powerless.
  Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend's speech is, as always, tell in and eloquent. It is a welcome change from what we have heard so far from Conservative Members. I hope that this will meet my hon. Friend's point: if there were to be a dispute between a Whitehall Department and the Welsh Assembly, it would be for the Secretary of State to talk to his Cabinet colleagues and to represent the interests of Wales and the assembly in the Cabinet. That is one of the important residual functions that will remain.
  Mr. Rowlands: I hate to tell my hon. Friend that, in all my understanding and experience of government, without Executive functions and a budget, one is pretty well ignored. It was interesting that the Institute of Welsh Affairs mentioned this, and I can remind my hon. Friend about it. I do not usually agree with the institute on these matters, but the penny is dropping in this document. It says:
  "It must be borne in mind that after devolution the Secretary of State will be left with little more administrative support than a central secretariat of perhaps 20 or 30 civil servants. In the longer run too, it is questionable whether there is room for two politicians who both claim to represent and speak for the interests of Wales— the leader of the Assembly and the Secretary of State. And in any case, after devolution the Secretary of State will have lost those direct responsibilities over such matters as health and education that currently give him much of his influence in the Cabinet."
  That has come from an organisation that is heavily pro-devolution.
  I accept that health and education functions will be transferred—they are the heart of devolution—but I believe in the needs of the external economy of Wales, especially inward investment, where the function and budget responsibilities should remain with the Secretary of State. He, alongside the Welsh Development Agency and the assembly, can continue to play the role that has been so important to the development of inward investment in Wales during the past 25 years. I beg him to ensure that those responsibilities remain with him.
  I want to touch on another relationship—that of the assembly with Westminster. It is interesting how little we have debated it. Have the House authorities told us, for example, what questions on Welsh affairs will be allowed here after devolution? When the Secretary of State's functions are transferred, his responsibilities will also be transferred from this House to the assembly. That is what devolution is all about. What will be the character and nature of arrangement that Welsh Members will have at Westminster to probe and ask questions of the Secretary of State? Will the Table Office say, "This is no longer the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales, so your question is not allowable"?
  I am willing to accept that limitation because I support devolution, but we should know what will happen. We need a clear statement on the matter. I envisage a fundamental role for Welsh Members at Westminster. In a curious way, post-devolution, the reserved powers and the interesting relationship between the Secretary of State and Whitehall and central Government will mean that Welsh Members will have a vital role to play. Anything that impinges or impacts on Welsh affairs at central Government level will become the responsibility of and a matter for scrutiny by Welsh Members.

  837
  We should no longer rest on convention. We should not be told that these matters are automatic because this House is all-powerful. If concordats are to be written about the relationship between Whitehall and the assembly, there must also be a Westminster concordat. We should be told what will be the future function of Welsh Members at Westminster.
  I had not intended to detain the House for so long, but the number of interventions have prolonged my remarks. I am a great believer in representative democracy and I shall take pleasure in voting for the Bill tonight. However, we cannot and must not suspend our critical judgment on its character and nature and the problems and implications in its broader sense.
  Those of us who have to explain this Bill to the public want to ensure that we do not sell it in the wrong way. My plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends is that we should not claim more for the Bill and for devolution than is deserved. Disappointment and disillusionment is as dangerous to democracy as remoteness and lack of accountability. If we keep saying that the Bill will dramatically improve the social and economic inequalities from which Wales now suffers, we could disillusion and disappoint. The central case for devolution is democratic—that the whole range of administration and public life currently devolved in a variety of ways to the Welsh Office and to quangos will become more democratically accountable to a Welsh Assembly.
  I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the case is not economic. Democratic assemblies can make terrible decisions and do things that are wrong. At times, they can make an economic mess of matters. No one says that democracy produces perfect government. However, the quality and joy of a representative democracy is that we can sack those who make the mistakes. I do not look forward to sacking members of a future Welsh Assembly, but instead hope that a combination of Members at Westminster and assembly members will ensure that Wales is truly democratic.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made a distinguished speech. I say that with diffidence because to praise a Welsh Member from a different tradition often causes some difficulty. Encapsulated in the hon. Gentleman's arguments were many of the genuine concerns about the proposal for devolved government for Wales.
  I contrast the hon. Gentleman's speech with that of the Under-Secretary. In the months since he first argued for the White Paper, I have come to regard him as the witch hunter of Wales. He turns on people who have been elected by Welsh constituencies, and perhaps stood for the Labour party for many years, as though they are enemies of their party. I cannot conceive why trying to unpick and reason the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal should be a matter for criticism. It is a matter of pride that Wales produces fine Members of Parliament, who have brought Wales to the centre of the union in our national history.
  The Under-Secretary's speech was so trivial it was shocking. He was an illusionist, as the proposal has the backing of just 25 per cent. of the vote in Wales. Those are all the people who turned out to vote for his proposals
  838
  in the White Paper—[Interruption.] We must get to the bottom of this. The hon. Gentleman criticises anyone who recognises that 25 per cent. is only 25 per cent. After all, 25 per cent. voted against his proposals—and hanging over that is the 50 per cent. of the electorate who, given the opportunity to support his proposals, did not do so. There is no democratic system on earth with a written constitution that would accept that 75 per cent. of an electorate not supporting a proposal is the basis for going ahead with that proposal.
  Of course, a referendum did not have to be held, except that it was included in the Labour party manifesto. It was described as strengthening the union, no less. The referendum went ahead on that basis, but by any ordinary valued judgment it failed. It is a miserable situation for the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary—that is, if he understands the weight of vote against his proposal. He did not achieve consent, but his manner tried to undermine consensus.
  The Conservative party is not isolated in this matter. As has been pointed out yesterday and today, 250,000 more people than voted for the Conservatives at the general election voted against the Government's proposal. By any process of deduction, that must mean that a large number of Labour party supporters voted against the proposal. The witch hunter of Wales will have his work cut out in seeking out those who defied the manifesto that he holds up as the only authority in the matter.
  What about the consensus of Plaid Cymru, which at least has the decency to admit that it is a separatist party? What was the language of its leader, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)? How did he seek consensus as he attacked the Conservative party? He said:
  "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 in Wales."—[Official Report, 8 December 1997; Vol.302, c. 703.]
  No one is seeking consensus, and the truth is that the Labour Government are being ridden by the separatists.
  In his trivial speech, the Under-Secretary attacked everyone who does not share his view. The process that this place is that of debate. We have heard the careful and rational trying to consider the various elements of the Bill. Will it work? That is what is being asked. Wales is very suspicious, and why would it not be? Suddenly it is going to be landed with large capital costs for the assembly which was valiantly rejected by the electorate of Cardiff, although I note that one of its leading Members, the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration, is already announcing that he is leaving the House to stand for the assembly should it come into existence. The hon. Gentleman's own electorate rejected the proposal, but it is to be pursued as if it is a done and settled deal.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On what evidence does the hon. Gentleman say that my electorate rejected the proposals for a Welsh Assembly?
  Mr. Shepherd: I base it on the turnout in the city that the hon. Gentleman represents.
  Mr. Morgan: There are four constituencies in Cardiff, which means that there are many possibilities as to the

  839
  results in Cardiff, West. My belief, based on having seen some of the boxes being unloaded, is that Cardiff, West in no way rejected the proposals.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am told that 55.6 per cent. voted no, so it is difficult to reach that conclusion.[Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Gentleman is sensitive: his own city rejected the proposals, and it is likely that his own electorate rejected them. Notwithstanding that, he feels that the result was an endorsement for the march forward of the elected assembly.
  Mr. Evans: In Cardiff, where the gravy train was expected to stop, 53 per cent. of the people did not even turn out to vote.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: You were not there.
  Mr. Shepherd: I quite understand that Labour Members are enormously sensitive about this. They have to get over the fact that only 25 per cent. voted for the proposals.
  Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) spoke for 36 minutes yesterday, and has made two long interventions today; sedentary interventions on top of that are not acceptable.
  Mr. Shepherd: I merely postulate that perhaps the Welsh electorate are rather wise. We are told that the start-up costs will be considerable, and that the annual running costs might be between £15 million and £20 million. I think that most people can see that, to use a phrase that has already been used by a Labour Member and which stuck in my mind, we are talking about a class that is trying to get its bottom on the Consolidated Fund.
  The by-product of the proposals will be the creation or extension of a political class, and I am not sure what that accomplishes for Wales. All I know is that, despite the information provided by the Government in the form of a most massive campaign in favour, the proposals failed by any recognisable democratic process to achieve validation.
  My concern is not based only on the particulars of the Bill or of the referendum campaign, however magnificently it failed.
  Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman was elected by only 36 per cent. of his electorate, does he consider that he was validly elected?
  Mr. Shepherd: The Under-Secretary must have heard four or five interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) who tried to point out—I realise that the distinction might be too fine for the hon. Gentleman—the difference between a constitutional settlement, or a validation of what is attempting to be a constitutional settlement, and the ordinary processes of democracy and the election of Members of Parliament.
  840
  Most of us can perceive a distinction, but the Under-Secretary does not. That is not a surprise. I have listened to his abuse of almost all Opposition Members as neanderthal, backward-looking and not pro-democracy—
  Mr. Nick Ainger: The leader of Plaid Cymru said that.
  Mr. Shepherd: The language is common. I pick on Plaid Cymru only because it launched into that attack. I just know that there is nothing consensual.
  We need to stand back. Wales might have rejected the proposals because they are not on an equal footing with those for any other part of the United Kingdom. They certainly do not echo the proposals for Scotland. In a sense, they marginalise Wales; or are they a statement to the effect that the Welsh people are incapable of exercising powers and functions deemed appropriate for Scotland? Does the Secretary of State for Wales think that the Welsh population are lesser in their abilities or reasoning, and could not maintain a form of government for themselves?
  There is a distinction between the two proposed systems of government which has to be explained more appropriately than Labour Front Benchers have managed so far. I am concerned about the Scots and the Welsh, as they are incorporating an alien system of electing Members of Parliament. I say "alien", because it is unusual. My fear is that these great developments will reduce turnouts at elections until they lack authority and we end up like the United States, where so few people voted for the president—which is extraordinary in such a major democracy. I am worried about the unbalanced nature of the constitutional changes.
  Labour Front Benchers talk about regional assemblies for England, but will not deal with how to balance the Union's constitution. It is now unequal. The fact is that neither the Welsh nor the English elector will be on equal terms with the Scottish elector. Let us imagine that the Labour party wins the next general election but that its majority is formed only by Welsh Members of Parliament or, worst of all, by Scottish Members of Parliament. How can it be sustainable in those circumstances, when the inequality of citizenship is so rawly and prominently presented to us?
  This is a terribly unbalanced way to go about making constitutions. It does not seek consent and has not achieved consensus, two elements that are usually deemed to be important. It has not reached out and tried to embrace the political structures of our country. There has been no attempt to form a constitutional convention to see whether we can recognise the genuine needs of our island and its form of union. The proposals are nothing but the flaunting of a political class and a Labour party in power, owing its allegiance to whom—to Charter 88? The proposals are so piecemeal that their very lack of stability will do us down. In the end, this will be Labour's undoing.
  People will come to realise the inequality and the unstated, and almost unstateable, English element in this. I am Scottish-born, and represent an English constituency. I have always been a Conservative. My fear is that so many of those who now exercise power are only political activists and do not have a broad enough vision of stability and what brings us together as a Union.
  None of the proposals before us reflects those things. I am terribly fearful of a brand new Parliament that has had such a change of membership and which has so many

  841
  new Members who do not value the House or the system we have, partly, perhaps, because they have been genuinely disillusioned by 18 years of Conservative government. Much is made of that, and there may be some truth in it. However, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.
  As it happens, I have always believed in devolution. I believe that Westminster is a national expression, and that local government should flourish. Are the proposals for Wales a local government measure, or something more important? They have taken a local government route but, in the end, people who wish to spend money must be able to raise it. That is the element of the proposals that will do down Wales.
  The Government maintain that they can for ever support the Barnett formula, which is already under attack from hon. Members representing constituencies in the north of England, who are well aware that there are inequalities in the distribution of central finance. No Government can say that, for ever and a day, they will distribute money on the basis of such a formula when circumstances have changed. As Lord Barnett has pointed out, when his rule of thumb formula—which has worked well for nearly 20 years—was devised, Scotland was at an economic disadvantage in the Union in gross domestic product per head. Now the figure is said to be comparable with that for the south-east.
  How can the formula be maintained on any rational basis when Wales is at a disadvantage compared with the rest of the Union? Of course it must be up for grabs and a subject of dissection, argument or bidding every so often. The best that the Government can do is guarantee it until the end of the Parliament. The best that the Prime Minister can do is guarantee it for as long as he is Prime Minister. Anyone who looks at the formula knows that even a change of leadership in the party presently in government may result in a rebalancing of the formula to the disadvantage of those who think that they are to be advantaged.
  I did not intend to attack the gallant Under-Secretary, whose extraordinary career is an inspiration to many of us. As an aside, I am appalled that a career solely as a political activist can be the basis for haranguing—haranguing—lifelong members of the Labour party who do not support the Bill or do not think that it is necessary.
  I do not know whether people in Wales listen to debates in this House any more, but they know that the dissent on the Bill goes beyond the Conservative party. Some 250,000 of those who voted no—25 per cent. of those who voted in the referendum—clearly did not vote for the Conservatives in May. That 25 per cent. includes Labour voters, Liberal Democrats, or even—dare I say it?—Plaid Cymru supporters, who felt that there was not enough separatism in the measure.
  I have no hesitation in supporting the arguments of those on the Conservative Front Bench. I cheer when I hear intelligent, argued, thoughtful questions about what my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) called a dog's breakfast. The Bill is incoherent and unbalanced. The proposals are not equal to those for Scotland, and they leave England in a peculiar situation. The elements for constitutional stability are missing.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Huw Edwards: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who, like me, is a member of the Modernisation Committee. I applaud many of the suggestions that he has made on the rights of Back Benchers, the scrutiny of the Government, open government and freedom of information. However, I do not agree with his speech, which included many speculative comments. We shall have to see what happens. We cannot simply predict the failure of the measure. It is up to the people of Wales and the democratically elected members of the Assembly to ensure that it is a success.
  The Bill is part of the Government's programme to modernise our democracy. It must be seen in the context of the wider programme of constitutional reform to which the new Labour Government are committed, bringing decision making closer to the people who are affected. The wider programme will include reform of the other place, which has the capacity, without a democratic mandate, to delay legislation from this House. The introduction of a freedom of information Bill has been announced. The European Convention on Human Rights is to be incorporated into British law. A Scottish Parliament is to be established, following the recent referendum.
  The package of reform will also include the re-establishment of a democratic authority for London. This fine capital city needs a structure for strategic decision making. Regional development agencies will be established, as well as regional assemblies in England, if that is the wish of the people in those regions. The Government will also establish a commission on the electoral system to ensure fair representation. I welcome that.
  The House is also being modernised. It cannot reasonably fulfil all its functions. In addition to its role as the legislature for the United Kingdom, it has to scrutinise the Executive over a wide range of Departments. How many Select Committee reports are not debated? We need to be able to give more scrutiny to the Government. I share the commitment of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to giving Back Benchers more powers of scrutiny, but this House cannot do that, particularly given its increasing role on European legislation. That is why there is a natural momentum towards devolution, which the hon. Gentleman commended.
  The House is incapable of giving adequate consideration to Welsh affairs. Welsh Question Time has been reduced to just half an hour a month, and is largely monopolised by Conservative Members who have no real interest in Wales, but are simply trying to spike the Government's proposals for democratic devolution. The Welsh Grand Committee—which does not have to be entirely Welsh, is not particularly grand and is not even a committee—is not an adequate forum for debating Welsh affairs, never mind running the executive functions of Wales, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has suggested.
  The Bill is part of a wide-ranging programme of constitutional reform that will help to prepare Britain for the next century. It is before us because the people of Wales supported it in the recent referendum, albeit by

  843
  only a small margin. Had it been defeated by a small margin, I am sure that Conservative Members would not have said that there was no mandate for not implementing the measure. The Conservatives are inconsistent—
  Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that he is fully reflecting the views of his constituents, who, as I recall, voted no by a very large majority on 18 September?
  Mr. Edwards: I am coming to that point right now.
  My constituency recorded the highest no vote in the referendum. My constituency and the local authority of Monmouthshire are not entirely conterminous. My constituency does not include Caldicott—a largish town in the south-east—
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I am enjoying my hon. Friend's speech, but I hope that he will not respond to the silly remarks by the Conservatives. There are more important things to discuss than who voted for what. If the Conservatives cannot accept the workings of democracy, there is no point in responding to their silly childishness. The sooner they get to grips with examining the problems, such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), the better they will serve the people of Wales, although they do not represent them.
  Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend makes some reasonable remarks. However, I feel that I have a responsibility to talk about the mandate in my constituency.
  My constituency and the local authority are not conterminous, as I have said. Croes y Ceiliog is a major part of the Torfaen area, where the vote was pretty even. If figures had been produced for my constituency alone, they might have shown slightly more support—I put it no more strongly than that.
  I must accept that there are people in my constituency who have an instinctive hostility to the proposals. However, I feel that they have an instinctive hostility to democracy. I do not have a duty to represent that. I also accept that some Labour supporters voted no. However, it was most significant that 50 per cent. of the electorate did not vote at all.
  We cannot assume that people did not vote because they did or did not support the proposals. In that respect, they are the most interesting part of the electorate. I believe that many people did not vote because they did not fully understand the proposals. We have a responsibility to make our system of government more understandable.
  I must therefore convey to the House and to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench some of the reservations that my constituents had about the proposals.
  Mr. Evans: Did they?
  Mr. Edwards: Indeed they did, and I shall outline some of them. Although I do not agree with them all, I understand why some people had reservations.
  Many people felt that they did not know enough about the proposals for a Welsh Assembly. That is related to the fact that many people do not adequately understand
  844
  the present system of government, especially in Wales, where so much power rests in the hands of one Government Department and one Secretary of State.
  I represent a border constituency, where people often do not feel part of the debate and the information system that involve those who live further into Wales. Many of my constituents work over the water in the Bristol area. Their background may be from the Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire or south-west England. Many of them cannot pick up Welsh-medium television or even Welsh television in general. They receive television coverage transmitted from the south-west or the midlands.
  Many of my constituents are newcomers to Wales who have been attracted to south-east Wales because of the success of our inward investment. They come to the M4 corridor having been relocated to south-east Wales with companies and public bodies. In my experience, they have considerable appreciation of Monmouthshire and Gwent when they discover it. They live in south-east Wales, they bring up their families there, they work there, and they serve Wales. However, quite reasonably, they do not share a culturally Welsh identity, and we must respect that. Nor do they want to be excluded from that identity.
  Essentially, the Bill is not about cultural identity; it is about democracy. We talk about having a strategic elected body for London. It is not to celebrate the cultural identity of Londoners, but to provide a democratic forum for strategic policy making. The idea that the Welsh Assembly is a celebration of Welshness or the Welsh language needs to be corrected. It is essentially about democracy.
  There is a feeling that the Welsh Assembly will replicate the monopoly control that the Labour party has in local government in some areas of Wales. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office that the Bill includes an electoral system to ensure that there is fair representation. I disagree with some of my hon. Friends about that.
  We have an unfair electoral system, whereby the Labour party attracts 50 or 60 per cent. of the votes in Wales but gets 75 per cent. of the seats. It is equally unfair in parts of south and south-west England, where the Labour party gained a significant minority of votes but very few seats. There is a fundamental unfairness in our electoral system. First past the post is ideal for a two-party system.
  Mr. Rogers: Part of the reason for my reticence about supporting my hon. Friend on that argument relates to our experience in the south Wales valleys. On one or two occasions, the Welsh nationalists have taken control and totally excluded every other political party from the democratic process. The Liberals and the nationalists talk about exclusiveness because they are in a minority, but when they get a majority, they put the screws on: there is no talk of inclusiveness then.
  Mr. Edwards: The phenomenon of Welsh politics is how little progress the Welsh nationalists have made in south Wales. For many of us, the Conservatives are the Opposition. I do not expect or anticipate much inclusiveness or co-operation from them, but we are used to that.
  I have some sympathy with people who have reservations about the proposals. However, I do not feel that I have to represent the no campaigners who based

  845
  their views on anti-democratic and anti-Welsh prejudices. If there had been a referendum in 1920 about giving women the vote, and the majority of the electorate had voted against, I would still reserve the right to represent the minority, as I believe that democratic advance must be achieved through principles.
  I turn to some of the parts of the Bill that have caused concern. Sensible people—even those who opposed it—recognise that there will be a Welsh Assembly. Some of those who had reservations before 18 September are now looking forward to it. For example, the business community does not feel that it will be adequately represented in a Welsh Assembly.
  This morning, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs met representatives of the Federation of Small Business and the South Wales Chamber of Commerce. According to the chairman of the Newport and Gwent Chamber of Commerce:
  "There is a fervent wish to see the Assembly work."
  In their evidence to the Select Committee, the representatives said:
  "The people of Wales, having voted in favour of the establishment of a Welsh Assembly, require those involved in the process of economic development to work together to ensure that it delivers the best for Wales for the future prosperity of the country."
  There is some concern that the small business community will not be adequately represented, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will examine that issue.
  There is a crisis in the farming community. I can understand those in the farming community thinking that the present system is not adequate. They need an assurance that the farming interest will be adequately represented in the Welsh Assembly. At least the Welsh Assembly will give the farming community a stronger voice in Brussels.
  Mr. Dalyell: How will the farmers get a stronger voice in Brussels?
  Mr. Edwards: There will be more direct representation. At present, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is not involved in negotiations in Brussels in the same way as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture. The Welsh Assembly will provide stronger representation in Europe. [Interruption.] It is clearly a matter of dispute. I hope that my hon. Friend is in favour of stronger representation, and will support any amendments to that end.
  There are important challenges. I support the principle of a more democratic Wales through a Welsh Assembly. May I draw attention to one or two key aspects in which I have a particular interest?
  First, the Welsh Assembly should have an all-Wales anti-poverty strategy. That offers a rich opportunity. Recently, I attended an excellent conference at Swansea arranged by the city and county of Swansea, which has played a leading role in the development of a local anti-poverty strategy. I hope that it will be a responsibility of the Welsh Assembly to develop an all-Wales anti-poverty strategy, and perhaps a social exclusion unit for Wales, to co-ordinate policy across the assembly's departmental responsibilities, to monitor the implementation of the minimum wage and to develop social and economic policies to attack poverty in Wales.
  846
  Secondly, there will be the important challenge of co-ordinating a more effective strategy for care in the community. Like Scotland, Wales is in a distinct position to develop a more co-ordinated strategy for long-term care and support for people with physical and learning disabilities. There has been an effective all-Wales mental handicap strategy, which was widely commended outside Wales. I hope that, under the Welsh Assembly, there will be more co-ordinated all-Wales strategies. They would be the envy of England.
  There will and must be safeguards in the Bill. We must expect high standards of public conduct under the Nolan recommendations. We must have—it is in the Bill—an auditor-general for Wales to ensure efficient discharge of public resources. There will be an electoral system to give fair representation. The proposal for an electoral system with an element of proportionality is one of the radical innovations in Britain that has come about as a result of the Bill. True democrats will support the principle of fair representation. The element of proportionality will ensure that the assembly broadly reflects the popular vote for the respective parties in Wales.
  A national assembly for Wales provides a new beginning, a new strategic approach, which will be inclusive and will ensure that Wales is a more democratic and better place.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that an awful lot of hon. Members want to speak. Extremely long speeches are being made, and it would be very helpful if they were a little shorter.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on his speech. We very much welcome him back to the House. We are grateful for the contribution that he has already made to the debate and the cause of Wales.
  I want to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—although I see that he is about to leave the Chamber. Joseph Chamberlain would have been proud of him. It was a good speech, although I profoundly disagreed with his analysis. It was the kind of speech that Chamberlain would have made in the House just over 100 years ago. It was a classic speech in defence of the Union.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills must remember why there is a growing demand in Wales for greater democracy and greater accountability. There have been occasions on which the Conservative party has not been kind to Wales. The 18 years of Conservative rule separated the votes in 1979 and 1997. During those 18 years, the kind of principles that the hon. Gentleman enunciated unfortunately meant the centralisation of power, the gradual taking away of powers from local authorities—which he applauded—and their transfer to unelected people, rather than the kind of devolution that he advocated. The then Secretary of State for Wales invariably appointed Conservatives who had been rejected by the Welsh electorate—thrown out by the Welsh people,

  847
  but imposed on Wales by the Secretary of State to throw down our throats some of the things that happened over those years.
  Although the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made a classic speech in defence of the Union, he must recognise that there is a mood in Wales for change, which was reflected in the vote on 18 September. It was not the ringing endorsement that those in favour of the proposals wanted, but the difference between the votes in Wales in 1979 and 1997 was substantially greater than the difference in the votes in Scotland.
  In his very interesting speech, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills criticised the proposals for being piecemeal and not part of a coherent approach. That has always been the problem with this House of Commons. It has always approached constitutional change in such a piecemeal way and never really addressed the issue throughout the United Kingdom. One of the reasons why the Liberal party split at the end of the last century was because it failed to grasp that nettle. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to agree with what many of us in Wales are saying but to recognise that things have changed and that the people of Wales want to move forward—although there was a certain reticence among some of them on 18 September.
  I recognise that I have spent a little time dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but I want to deal with one more of his points. I did not take kindly to his referring to us as a bunch of separatists. If he looks back over the 23 or 24 years of Plaid Cymru Members of Parliament, he will realise the extremely valuable contribution that they have made in the Chamber, in Committees and in representing their constituents, especially since 1974. We have been part of the great change in Wales over the past quarter of a century or so. I am sorry to have detained the hon. Gentleman, but it was important to put some of the facts on the record.
  The Under-Secretary of State will be aware that we have always maintained a very constructive and positive approach to the proposals that the Government have enshrined in the Bill. We all recognise that, following the result of the referendum, we have a responsibility to all those in Wales—those who voted yes and those who voted no—to ensure that the national assembly begins its work with as much good will and support as we can collectively generate.
  Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) outlined some of the recent history of the battle to secure greater democracy in Wales and Scotland. That battle has gone on for about 120 years. In the 1880s, we saw the beginning of some of the debates that have culminated in the Bill. I will concentrate on three aspects of the Bill. I recognise that there are ways in which the measure can be improved, and I make my comments in that spirit.
  The Bill's main weakness, as Plaid Cymru sees it, is its lack of legislative proposals. Many of the points addressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) could have been solved had the Welsh Assembly been given legislative powers. I recognise that there are debates about the relationship between the assembly and Westminster and the Whitehall machine.
  848
  They are well understood. If one reads the White Paper and the Bill, one clearly sees that that matter needs to be addressed.
  Although there are no legislative powers in the White Paper and the Bill, there are very limited powers to amend or repeal legislation under the Henry VIII reserve powers. The problem is that the Welsh Assembly will be restricted in some ways in developing policy initiatives. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the assembly wants to do things a little differently in education, health or other areas. It will not have the powers to do so. It will have only limited power through secondary legislation. The way in which we can develop legislation depends on how the primary legislative framework is prepared. It could he narrowly or widely defined. There are certain areas where we could do a great deal and others where we would be very restricted.
  Recognising that the assembly will not have legislative powers, Plaid Cymru has put forward what I think many people regard as an interesting suggestion. If the assembly considers that it might be necessary for minor legislative changes, all that would happen under the Bill is that the proposal would go to the back of the queue in Westminster. We all know how difficult it is to get Bills through the Queen's Speech and into the legislative programme. Might it not be possible to accept a minor amendment to enable some fast-track procedure in Whitehall to deal with such a problem—if there were, say, a clear wish of a two-thirds majority in the assembly?
  Why not revamp the Welsh Grand Committee? That proposal might find favour with some hon. Members who might have difficulty understanding the correct relationship between Westminster and the assembly. Under such a fast-track procedure, the Grand Committee could deal with Second Reading and Committee stages of legislation, and later stages could be taken in the Chamber. By that means, the assembly would not be frustrated in carrying out some of its work. Negotiations would still need to be held between the Secretary of State, the Government and the assembly about which Bills would be appropriate for that procedure, but I ask the Minister seriously to consider that proposal.
  My second point is related to the debate about cabinet-style government and committee-style government. I raised that point in an intervention in the speech by the Secretary of State yesterday and he implied that the commission that he is setting up will consider the point. I have read the White Paper and the Bill again, and committee-style government is contained in the Bill virtually unchanged from the proposals in the White Paper.
  The Bill states clearly that the leader of each subject committee will be appointed or elected by that committee. The leader—or secretary, as he will be called—will be the creature of the committee. Therefore, the structure will follow the local government model. That might have been appropriate when the local government model was introduced a century ago, but it does not meet the needs of a situation which requires quick decision making. If we moved towards more cabinet-style government, would that require an amendment to the Bill?
  Mr. Hain: No, it would not. It would be open to the advisory committee, and subsequently the Standing Orders Commission, to make recommendations in the

  849
  standing orders of the assembly which could alter the nature of decision making in favour of a cabinet-style model within the framework of the Bill. Members of the executive committee, albeit elected by the individual policy committees, could have decision-making powers equivalent to those of Ministers.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for intervening, and I hope that he is right. One of the aspects of the drafting of the Bill that surprised me was that the chairpersons of the subject committees will be chosen from a panel elected by the assembly, but the leader or secretary will be elected by the individual subject committee. I would have preferred that both positions were the subject of elections by the whole assembly, which would confirm that the assembly will have cabinet-style, not committee-style, government. I ask the Minister to reflect on that point, and I am sure that we will come back to it in Committee.
  My third point is connected with the relationship between the assembly and Europe. None of us could claim that the provisions for the assembly will revolutionise the relationship between Wales and Europe. Some of the proposals are modest and I accept that. Nevertheless, they are very important. I wish to cover three basic aspects.
  First, it was specified in the White Paper that one of the powers of the Secretary of State that would be transferred to the assembly was the right to control the dispersal of European structural funds in Wales. I can find no reference to the transfer of that power in the Bill. It may be implicit in some of the provisions; I hope that the Minister, when he winds up, will confirm that it is. In other words, does the Bill give the assembly the right to distribute structural funds in Wales? That was in the White Paper, but it is not in the Bill; it is important that that point is clarified.
  Incidentally, the assembly will wish to maintain an office in Brussels. Votes in the Council of Ministers are important, but so are the negotiations that lead to the decisions. The discussion with Commission officials is part of the work of the negotiating team that goes to the Council of Ministers, and the assembly will need a strong office in Brussels.
  Secondly, the assembly should have direct access to the United Kingdom Permanent Representation office in Brussels. UKREP has always had an official from the Scottish Office, and will continue to do so. On occasions, Welsh Office staff have worked there and have done an excellent job. However, we need an assurance that, once the assembly is established, one official in UKREP will always look after the interests of Wales. Whether that is through the Secretary of State's office or the assembly office does not really matter, but it is important that we have a representative.
  Thirdly, the Scottish White Paper contains a provision that will allow the leader of the Scottish Parliament to represent the UK in the Council of Ministers—in other words, to exercise the UK's vote. We are told that a representative from the Welsh Assembly might have an opportunity to attend the Council of Ministers as part of the team. The Secretary of State has told us that there will be no difference in the way Scotland and Wales are treated in terms of the relationship with Europe, but there is an obvious difference in the White Paper. The Secretary of State has commented subsequently, but the House
  850
  should be told whether the First Secretary of the assembly will ever have the opportunity to exercise the UK's vote in the Council of Ministers.
  That important point should be clarified, because the Maastricht treaty makes provision for regional governments to represent member states on occasions, and that has happened in Germany and Belgium. We need to know whether that will happen in the case of the Welsh Assembly.
  Mr. Jenkin: When has a Minister from one of the German lauder ever exercised the vote in the Council of Ministers? The White Paper is brutal about the influence on the conduct of Council business that the Government envisage for the Welsh First Secretary. It states:
  "the Assembly should be able to keep the delegation advised of its views."
  It says nothing about attending the Council of Ministers, although it will be possible for the Welsh First Secretary to attend—by invitation from the UK Government and, presumably, long so the UK position is being supported.
  Mr. Jones: Representatives of the German lauder and some of the states in Belgium have represented their member state in the Council of Ministers under article 146 of the Maastricht treaty. That is confirmed in a research paper that the Library prepared before this debate. We need the issue of representation in the Council of Ministers to be clarified, because—as we understand it—the leader of the relevant subject committee would have the right to attend the Council of Ministers as part of the delegation.
  Mr. Jenkin: By invitation.
  Mr. Jones: I will clarify that point. At the invitation of the relevant Secretary of State, the leader of the subject committee would be allowed to participate. We would prefer that to be a right, and I hope that the Minister will tell us in what circumstances that would happen.
  I am conscious of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will finish now. We should like the issues that I have raised to be clarified in Committee, but I assure the Minister that we shall approach those subjects in a constructive manner.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. John Smith: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in what I consider to be a most historic debate in the House tonight. Every Welsh person will be looking to us tonight to vote for this radical Bill that will devolve power to our country and to our people.
  For me personally, it is a privilege to be called to speak in this debate. In 1989, I was the chair of the Wales Labour party when we first decided to consult the Welsh people and parties—not just the Wales Labour party—on the need to reform government. It has been a long process of seven or eight years, but we have arrived tonight at that moment and I look forward to voting for the Bill later.
  Today, it was brought home to me just why we need a voice for Wales and why we need to vote for the Bill. This morning, at the request of local farmers, I attended the famous Christmas market in the market town of

  851
  Cowbridge in my constituency. It is usually a time of great festivity and Christmas cheer. Today, there was very little cheer, given the situation in which many farmers find themselves.
  I have been politically active in my constituency for more than 25 years, and never did I think I would see the day when my local farmers would be carrying banners. They are doing so because of the debacle that the previous Government made of the beef industry—and agriculture in general—through the BSE fiasco in particular. It is not just the mess that has been created in this great industry of ours; it is the fact that the Welsh farmers did not have a direct voice because Wales has been denuded of power during the past 18 years, following the centralisation of responsibilities which were once those of local government.
  It is no accident that it was Welsh farmers in Holyhead who demonstrated last week. It was a clear manifestation of the power that has been taken away from our country, systematically, in the past 20 years. If this Bill had been proposed a couple of years ago—and if we had had an assembly for our nation—those demonstrations would not have taken place.
  The situation was brought home to me this morning by Bill Bassett, one of the oldest farmers in my constituency. He is a great character in the local community, and he approached me this morning and said that the industry had not been in a similar situation since the 1930s. That is what BSE and the crisis of two years ago has done to that community. We owe it to that community to ensure two things; first, that confidence is restored to the beef market in particular and to agricultural markets in general; and, secondly, in the longer term, that our farmers compete on a level playing field in Europe.
  I wish in the short time available to me to refer to three small but important parts of the Bill. First, clause 6 refers to payments and salaries to assembly members. It is right that that responsibility should go to a senior salary review body. The Welsh people believe that salaries and allowances should be modest. However, if we are to attract the best in Wales—we have a duty to make the assembly work at its best—we should consider the options available to us. We should recommend a system which protects salaries so that we can invite industrialists, great academics and senior people from the voluntary sector, the trade unions and the wider community, and give them an inducement to put their names forward to enter politics in a way that they may not have considered before.
  We could offer some form of protected salary, such as the Germans have; a system that British civil servants introduced to them at the end of the second world war. We should consider a voluntary code of practice for employers in the private and public sectors in Wales to allow them to consider sabbaticals and keeping positions open for employees to allow them to go forward to be considered for election.
  The second point was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and relates to the concerns of the business community. I share those concerns, and I wonder whether clauses 110 and 111 could extend the partnerships being considered by the assembly beyond local government and the voluntary sector to incorporate the business community. The business
  852
  community in Wales could be our greatest ally in taking our country forward in terms of economic development when we have a voice and an assembly of our own.
  It has been my experience in recent years, working in the inward investment field in Wales, that the business community has so much to offer the Welsh people. Within that community, we found that it was specifically English investors in Wales who were our greatest allies. Is there not a way of facilitating that through the assembly by creating private sector partnerships, conterminous with the regional economic committees, the training and enterprise councils and the four regions of the Welsh Development Agency? If we involve the business community, we can create a synergy to produce the best and give us access to the talent and skill that could act as a driving motor to take our economy forward.
  It is true, and I do not wish to take anything away from the fact, that the WDA's track record in attracting direct foreign investment into Wales has been second to none, but our country's record in attracting our fair share of United Kingdom investment—the lion's share of all investment; more than two thirds of investment in the Principality—has been appalling. We have under-performed in attracting UK investment into Wales; we have out-performed every other region in attracting overseas investment. The closer to Wales one gets, the greater the difficulty in securing footloose investment and expansion investment.
  It is easier to get investment from South Korea than it is from south Kensington. It is easier for the Welsh people to get investment from Tokyo than from Tunbridge Wells. It is easy to get investment from the other side of the world, but we cannot get investment from the other side of the Severn bridge. The assembly has a unique opportunity to ensure that people within the United Kingdom and Europe are attracted to Wales.
  In a recent survey in Wales on Sunday, the senior industrial correspondents of all the major European countries were asked what they thought of Wales as an investment location. What did we see? We saw a London-centric—a Hampstead dinner party set—view of south Wales; coal mines and slag heaps. That view has been fed through from London and the south-east of England. The assembly could turn that around quickly and economically, and we should address that. It is a challenge that we in Wales look forward to.
  Mr. Ancram: I have been interested by the hon. Gentleman's glowing idea of what the assembly will achieve. I presume, on that basis, that he will be standing for the assembly and will be leaving this House.
  Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. My role in this House is precious. I support this United Kingdom, and the assembly will not contradict its unity and the Union. If I have any say in it, I will try to sustain my role in the defence of this nation for some time; it is a role that I am proud to have. I see no contradiction. [Interruption.] I hear the laughter, the jibes and the quick points of Opposition Members, but I can stand here and speak on behalf of my people and my nation. I cannot see anyone on the Opposition Benches who is in a position to do so.
  My final point is on the location of the assembly, which comes within the ambit of the Bill and the financial memorandum. I represent a seat that geographically is

  853
  placed between the cities of Cardiff and Swansea. I have had the great pleasure of living and working in Swansea for some years and there is no finer and more beautiful city. The final decision as to location must be taken on the basis of what is in the best interests of our country and our nation.
  I cannot conceive of an assembly outside the capital city doing anything other than detracting from the needs of our country. When that decision is taken we must be objective. If the assembly is to have the greatest effect—providing a voice for Wales and a new and modern image of Wales, which reflects the country as it is and not as people on the other side of the Severn bridge sometimes think it is—it must be in the administrative and commercial centre and the heart of Wales. It has to be in our capital city. I do not have any great desires as to where in that city it should go, but everyone in Wales would appreciate it if the building could be got under way in the not too distant future.
  Once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must thank you for calling me to speak. It is certainly a proud moment for me. The quicker that we get to 10 o'clock, go through the Lobby and vote yes for Wales, the better.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), especially as I come from the wrong side of the Severn, as he would describe it. I am not Welsh and do not represent a Welsh constituency, although I am not that far off, but I wanted to take part in this debate to do my bit—it is only my bit—to try to preserve the United Kingdom and to protect it from sliding towards the great danger of becoming a set of regions within a federal Europe.
  By and large, I object to the Bill for two main and broad reasons—first, because of some of the details and secondly, because I object to the general principles of devolution as they are being applied.
  On the details, the introduction of a new voting system on the back of devolution concerns me. Two new things are coming in at once. Such voting systems have not been explained to or endorsed by the electorate. That form of proportional representation is alien to Britain. Under our constitution, voters vote for people and not for parties. It could be said that they vote Conservative, Labour or, occasionally, Liberal Democrat, but by and large, under our constitution, they vote for people. Also, parties have not previously had to register. Under the Bill, they will have to.
  Obviously, that represents a significant and confusing shift in the way we elect the people who run our country. We are moving not to one simple system of proportional representation—if there is such a thing—but to a dual system with all the confusion that that will bring. The Welsh Assembly will have a two-tier membership: some members will have constituents and some will not; some will have constituencies and some will not; some will receive many letters and have much work to do each week, but some will not; some will be in touch with the electorate and some will not; and, some will be serving their constituents, while others will serve those who compile the lists. I do not want that system to be introduced into this country.
  854
  Such a dual system might benefit the Conservative party at the moment. We might win some seats that we would not otherwise win, but the principle is the important thing. In this Bill, the principle is confusing and very wrong.
  The assembly itself is also a matter of some confusion. The Bill does not make it clear whether it will be powerful or weak. For example, the Secretary of State will be able to overrule the assembly, direct it and revoke its decisions. Does that make this new assembly nothing more than an expensive talking shop? Or will it be concerned with the government of Wales? Will it be a powerful body? Which is it? The Bill certainly does not make that clear.
  We have heard much comment on the referendum. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) pointed out, the turnout for the referendum was somewhat less than when one was held in 1978. Then, 58.3 per cent. of the electorate voted. This time, it was 50.1 per cent.
  The Bill is being rushed through. The referendum was rushed through while it is fair to say that the Labour Government were enjoying a fair degree of popularity. It was rushed through before the Bill was published and there was a small turnout. Even given all that, only a tiny majority was in favour of the Bill.
  Is that a full mandate—a mandate sufficiently strong to break up the United Kingdom? Is it a mandate sufficiently strong to move the United Kingdom towards the Labour Government's real aim, which is a Europe of regions? If another referendum were held in 12 months, say, it could well give a different result. It is safe to assume that by then the gloss will have gone off the Labour Government. The Bill is now published and by then we will have debated it in full, and that referendum would not be influenced by the Scottish vote.
  Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the United States has been broken up in some way by the existence of a federal system?
  Mr. Robertson: The United States is a completely different country. Some areas of the United States experience many problems that I would not want us to experience. It is not comparable.
  If another referendum on the issue were held, when circumstances were different—even in 12 months' time—the outcome would be very different, especially given the closeness of the vote at a time when the Government had everything on their side.
  As we have heard from Opposition Members, in most countries major constitutional change requires a minimum mandate—a threshold. When the previous referendum was held, the Labour Government required such a threshold. If they had not, Scotland would have had its own Parliament then. The fact that it was not given a Parliament then caused certain Members to bring down that Labour Government. Perhaps that is what concerns this Government—not that they are likely to be brought down in the House, but that they are conscious of the fact that they need to win the next election, and that may be worrying them very much.
  Virtually every club, society and association in the land has to achieve a two-thirds vote at a special meeting to change its constitution. If that is good enough for them and for many other countries, why is it not good enough

  855
  for devolution votes in this country, especially as the Bill is, I understand, to be considered in Standing Committee, not on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Chris Ruane: Did the Conservative Government have a mandate, or a two-thirds majority, to change the system of government in Wales from a democracy to a quangocracy?
  Mr. Robertson: The Conservative Government were elected by the legitimate electoral means, as indeed were the present Labour Government, who achieved about 45 per cent. of the vote and are moving towards breaking up the United Kingdom and taking us headlong into a federal Europe. Do they intend to consult the electorate on that? I very much doubt it.
  Mr. Dalyell: I want to put a different historical point of view on two brief points. First, those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, of whom I would be one, did not bring down the Labour Government, as it was not we who persuaded James Callaghan to delay the election from October 1978 until March 1979. Secondly, as I have told George Cunningham, I greatly regret ever having introduced a threshold, because it was seen as moving the goalposts and changing the rules, and the referendum result would have been much more decisive for the noes—at that time—had it not been introduced. That is the history as I see it.
  Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that history lesson and bow to his great authority in the matter. As the United Kingdom is being broken up without any consultation of the English people, there should be some certainty before the Labour Government proceed down the road that they have chosen.
  As I was saying, I regret the fact that the Bill will not be considered in Committee of the whole House. That prevents many hon. Members from taking part, including many Labour Members who may be critical of the Government's plans. Perhaps that is part of the Labour plan: silence the critics, ride roughshod over the House of Commons and introduce referendums before legislation.
  That is no way to go about breaking up the United Kingdom, which as far as I can see is what this is all about. We are to have a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, and regional government in England. If that is not about fracturing the United Kingdom, I do not know what is. I do not believe that the measures can strengthen the Union; they can only weaken it.
  I recognise some of the problems under the Union, but I believe that Wales and Scotland have done well and that their future cannot be guaranteed under the proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said, Wales received £4,352 per head to England's £3,743. If we go down the devolution road, that difference could give rise to English nationalism, which I would regret.
  There could be a demand to reduce that allocation and the Welsh representation in Parliament. There could also be—indeed, there is—a demand for an English parliament. Some of those demands are acceptable and understandable, but I do not want a rise in English nationalism. I do not want
  856
  there to be an English parliament, first because I am elected to represent constituents in the United Kingdom Parliament and secondly because I am against devolution.
  I see no reason to prevent decisions from being made on a more local basis—for example, I am all in favour of strengthening the role of councils in Northern Ireland—but I see no need for bodies to be set up that create a potential for conflict. Two parliaments and one assembly in one country must give rise to conflict, as well as to duplication and confusion, not only constitutionally, in Government circles, but in the minds of the electorate.
  Whom will the electorate blame if things go wrong, or credit if they go right? Whom will they contact—their constituency Member of Parliament; their constituency member of the Welsh Assembly; or their regional member of the Welsh Assembly? What on earth will they do? Will they not experience some gridlock if the Welsh Assembly, or indeed the Scottish Parliament, is of a different political persuasion from the House of Commons?
  I am concerned about the Labour Government's master plan—if such it be—to create a federal Europe of regions. Do they really plan the end of the nation state in Europe? We have already had Scottish and Welsh devolution, we are to have a Greater London authority, and proposals are already being drawn up for English regional government.
  Some might accuse me of alarmism, but when I hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that there is no constitutional bar to a single currency, I am greatly concerned and I want to alert the public to what is going on, because I really believe that the United Kingdom is being broken up into small regions and that each of those regions will form part of a federal Europe. The British electorate have never consented to that, and would never do so. This is a slippery slope to something that the people of this country simply do not want.
  It is often suggested that the Conservative party should not engage in this debate, as we have no representation in Wales; as if that meant that we had no interest in Wales. This debate is not about Wales but about the United Kingdom. Not only are we entitled to take part in such debates: it is incumbent on us to do so, and to speak out against the Bill so that we may preserve the Union and the United Kingdom and resist moves towards a federal Europe of regions.
  7.26 pm
  Ms Julie Morgan: This is an historic occasion, as it is extremely rare for politicians to be in on the making of a new political institution, and Labour Members are enthusiastic and excited about it. It is good to have the chance to get on with the job of bringing democracy to Wales, bringing power closer to people in Wales, and trying to bring prosperity to people who have been excluded for far too long. I propose to touch on three matters relating to the Bill: the committee structure; equal opportunities; and the location of the assembly.
  The committee structure will be considered in detail by the advisory committee and then by the Standing Orders Commission, but I want to make some general points at this stage. Schedule 2 lists 18 wide-ranging fields of responsibility for the assembly, including agriculture, health, social services, education and the Welsh language.
  It would be unwise if those subject fields were translated into individual committees, plus any other committees that the assembly may choose to set up.

  857
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), I believe that the assembly should have integrated strategies that cross all the fields of responsibility. One of the big difficulties with local government, central Government and the Welsh Office stems from the division between their various departments, which makes it hard to implement strategies that cover them all.
  That is especially problematic in a field such as child care, responsibility for which is shared by education, health and social services, and which is also important to economic development. In the Welsh Office, the division is between two Ministers. In every layer of government, the division causes difficulties, and it is essential that we have strategies in the Welsh Assembly to draw together all the different threads.
  It was thought that a great advantage of the new unitary authorities would be the bringing together of, for example, health and social services. However, we do not bring things together by putting them in separate committees in one body. The key to success for the assembly is to have integrated strategies for the environment, sustainable economic development, and social and economic regeneration.
  We should be thinking of working in the assembly in those sorts of ways, which will tackle the particular problems of Wales. We need an imaginative, innovative structure. We need to learn from the problems that we have experienced in central and local government and in the Welsh Office in implementing such strategies.
  We should consider setting up mechanisms to consider groups such as children—a children's committee. Compared with the rest of Great Britain, Wales has special problems. We have the lowest gross domestic product per head and the highest poverty rate. We have major transport problems and fewer child care places. Low pay is an issue. We have more lone parents who are not working than the rest of Britain. We need policies to which the whole assembly subscribes, and fewer, more powerful, committees that can meet the objectives of the assembly.
  It is essential to establish good working structures with Government Departments. The success of the welfare-to-work policy, for instance, depends on the Employment Service and the Department of Social Security working with the assembly, which will provide the child care strategy that is essential for that policy to succeed.
  I am pleased that two clauses, clauses 47 and 113, refer to equal opportunities. Clause 47 states that the assembly's business must be
  "conducted with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all".
  Clause 113 states that the assembly's functions are to be
  "exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people."
  Starting afresh, with a new body, we should be able to make certain that those principles lie at the heart of the assembly.
  One of the most important ways of ensuring equal opportunity for all people is to have members who represent the range of people in Wales. That means that women should be there in equal numbers. I believe that
  858
  I am the first woman to speak in this debate, which is well into its second day. We do not want to mirror that in a Welsh Assembly.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) spoke yesterday.
  Ms Morgan: I am sorry—one female Member spoke yesterday.
  The women of Wales appreciate the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell), who strongly backed the principle of equal representation in his speech yesterday. The Bill leaves the means of getting equal representation to the political parties.
  I welcome the element of proportionality in the Bill. If the Conservatives get 20 per cent. of the vote in Wales, it is right that they should be represented in the Welsh Assembly. That makes for a better assembly and better government. Now that an 80-member assembly, with one man and one woman for each seat, is no longer an option, it may be difficult to achieve equal representation. Is it possible to put something in the Bill to allow political parties to take positive action to ensure that women are present in equal numbers?
  The Labour party has had a drive to find how many women would be prepared to stand for the assembly. We now have more than 200 women who are interested in standing. No one will ever be able to say that women do not want to put themselves forward, as has been often said in the past. It would be tragic if the enthusiasm of those women was not translated into reality. The weight of history is against us, against women being represented in political institutions. In Wales, we have only four women out of 40 Members. The process would be helped if we could include in the Bill a mechanism for positive action to get women into the assembly.
  Ensuring that the assembly's business is conducted in a way that is conducive to equal opportunities, both for members and for the public, means that the needs of men and women with children and dependents should be taken into account. All evidence shows that black people tend to be excluded from political and other activities. The last census in Cardiff showed that Afro-Caribbean people were more likely to be unemployed, to live in sub-standard housing, and not to own a car than the general population, as well as suffering from racism.
  We must make specific efforts to ensure that black people have access to the assembly. As we are starting afresh, we can try to do such things. Wales is a multicultural, cosmopolitan country, especially in the towns and cities of the south. It has been strongly argued already that the assembly is for everyone in Wales, for people with every accent, whose first language may be Welsh, Urdu, Bengali or English.
  The Bill is an opportunity for more open government, which we hope will involve many more people than in the past. Meetings should be as accessible to the public as possible. The assembly should able to co-opt people on to committees. It should be able to co-opt people who have experience of being disabled or of being black in a mainly white country. I respect the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) about trying to attract people from business, industry and academia, but, equally, we want to attract people who have had day-to-day experience of living in the particular circumstances of Wales..

  859
  The public should be able to put items on the agendas of committees. I strongly welcome the commitment to work with community groups and the voluntary sector, which is a huge constituency in Wales, ranging from big national organisations to the small community groups that make life in Wales function. Engaging with the voluntary sector, not only as a grant-giving and monitoring body but in consultations and as partners, is important and will enhance the assembly.
  It is important to engage with young people. I support a youth assembly. There should be mechanisms, such as a children's committee, for feeding in the views of children. Many schools have schools councils. We should encourage them to look at what is going on in the assembly.
  There should be no question of locating the assembly anywhere but in the capital of Wales. To start it anywhere else would cause confusion and weaken it. We need dispersed, devolved methods of communicating with people, but that is a back-up, not a substitute..
  The main point is to get the strongest possible assembly with the greatest ability to take decisions and thereby earn the respect of the people of Wales. I believe strongly that it must be located where the civil servants are and where decisions can be made quickly. It should be in the capital. There is a clear message from trade unions, business, international politics, Europe and the voluntary sector that there is no alternative to Cardiff. It is the one institution that cannot be devolved or go anywhere else. Many institutions can be dispersed, but the headquarters of the assembly must be in the capital.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who made a thoughtful speech, full of good, common sense and some important points. It was very much in contrast with the speech by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who opened the debate on behalf of the official Opposition.
  Mr. Jenkin: Go on, have a go.
  Mr. Llwyd: Yes, I shall have a go. It is time that someone had a go from this Bench, lest someone lump us in with your lot.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley spent a lot of time pouring out vitriol about this, that and the other. He said that the Bill had more holes than a Swiss cheese, yet he spent 10 seconds talking about them. Perhaps the Swiss cheese available in Ribble Valley is different from that which is available elsewhere in Europe. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was right to describe the hon. Gentleman's bluster as badly lacking in humility. So it was.
  That there is a lack of scrutiny of Welsh issues in this Parliament goes without saying. The Committees that consider Welsh Bills such as the Welsh Language Bill and the Local Government (Wales) Bill are packed with people from outside Wales who have no interest in what is going on in Wales, and often are there only to vote against any useful amendments. That cannot be the
  860
  essence of good government. We have half an hour of Welsh questions every five weeks or so, and one day a year there is a one-day debate on Wales. That does not make for satisfactory governance in Wales.
  The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) referred with high passion to the break-up of the United Kingdom that he says is inherent in the Bill. Those words were cheering to me, but I have to admit that, despite reading the Bill three or four times, I do not have the same impression. I should be delighted if he were right and I were wrong.
  Yesterday's debate was rather an anti-climax, probably because the three political parties that have representation in Wales believe that devolution is a good thing. The so-called opposition came from Tory Members, whose party has no representation in Wales. Worse still, some Tory Members' speeches showed that they had little or no knowledge of Wales, its needs or the real nature of the devolutionary process. The quality of the speeches of official Opposition Members rendered the debate a non-event.
  It is all very well for the little Englander, Eurosceptic tendency to churn out the old drivel, but it is an unedifying spectacle that does no credit to the Tory party. I believe that it would be deprecated by many sincere members of the Welsh Conservative party, who take a far more positive, proactive and sensible long-term view of the matter. I believe that it is possible to oppose a measure and remain constructive; but that view is not universally shared in the Chamber.
  I shall not get into a debate about figures. We have learnt enough about the mandate or lack of mandate, and the yes-no, and so on. Suffice it to say that there was a majority in favour on 19 September.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: A narrow majority.
  Mr. Llwyd: Yes, it was. The hon. Gentleman is so predictable. Before I am interrupted again and subjected to the mantra about the thinness of the majority, I must simply say that it ill behoves a party which was in power twice for a total of 10 years on the vote of a minority of the United Kingdom electorate to try to score points in that way.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), in his wide-ranging and interesting speech yesterday, touched on many important points. We in Plaid Cymru make no secret of the fact that we want a full legislative and tax-raising Parliament in Wales. The Bill falls considerably short of that goal, but we shall continue to argue and debate and, we hope, persuade in order to achieve that end.
  Lest I damn the Assembly with too faint praise, let me say that it is a welcome development. It brings government nearer to the people, and that has to be good. It also provides for rationalisation of the myriad Welsh quangos. Many will disappear, and I have little doubt that the taxpayers' money will be saved. It provides an opportunity to close the democratic deficit, and that must be welcomed by any democrat.
  Furthermore, the vexed question of accountability has been a great problem in the governance of Wales. When placemen are put in places of power and authority and make a hash of things, the people of Wales want to get rid of them, but in the current situation they cannot.

  861
  That is utterly repugnant and intolerable. I am sure that the Bill will tackle that aspect urgently, as it states it will and as the White Paper stated it would.
  Several hon. Members who spoke in yesterday's debate stressed the need for the national assembly to be accepted by all of Wales, whether it be the populous south-east, the sparsely populated Pembrokeshire coast or wherever. We must all strive to make the Assembly fully national for all in Wales. I agree with the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North about involving minorities and so on to make the Assembly truly representative. Of course we must have a proper gender balance, too. That is all evident good sense, and I hope that we will see it in action in the coming months and years.
  We must work to dispel the untruths perpetrated by the constructive and reactionary no campaign. We must build an assembly which is worthy of the title "national". So, while I acknowledge the need to deal with the concerns of Cardiff, Newport and Wrexham, I stress the need to deal urgently with the needs of rural Wales.
  I do not say that any part of Wales deserves special pleading, but it is a plain fact that rural Wales is in decline. Given the depth of the current crisis in agriculture, the very existence of large parts of Wales is called into sharp focus. One has to ask whether an assembly would have allowed the crisis in the beef and sheep sectors to happen. I have no doubt that the assembly's sympathies would lie with the industry, but sympathy does not pay the bank interest.
  Will the assembly be hamstrung and bound and gagged by the Ministry of Agriculture? The present Minister, unlike the Secretary of State for Wales, is breathtakingly complacent about the crisis in agriculture. I hope that he will wake up to the crisis sooner or later and certainly before it is too late.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is there not a genuine problem in that the very real difficulties of Welsh agriculture, which we all know about and some of us entirely accept, will be solved only by action by the Council of Ministers? The Welsh Assembly will not be represented in the Council of Ministers. When it comes to a question of power, how are the problems to which the hon. Gentleman rightly refers going to be solved?
  Mr. Llwyd: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an expert in these matters, but it is my understanding that a representative of the Welsh Assembly will be able to attend the Agriculture Council with any delegation. I am sure that Welsh needs can be dealt with in that way. I fully accept that there will not be official ministerial representation, and I regret that. That is one aspect that my party will seek to redress as the Bill proceeds. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, but there will be some voice, albeit that of a delegation.
  Many members of the farming fraternity have asked about the powers and obligations of the assembly towards agriculture. Agriculture in Wales is quite different from that in England, with 80 per cent. of the land mass classified as less favoured. The assembly must be able to take real decisions about agriculture and make and amend policy as it is received from the European Union. I accept what the hon. Member for Linlithgow has said about that.
  862
  I sincerely believe that the problems facing agriculture and their knock-on effect on the rural economy strengthen the call for an agricultural and rural affairs committee of the assembly. Those matters are inextricably linked, as the current crisis has shown.
  The National Farmers Union has taken a constructive approach to the Bill. In its short but helpful briefing, it refers to clause 33, which places a duty on the assembly to support and enhance aspects of Welsh cultural life. The NFU points out that the duty to enhance rural life is extremely important. I am pleased to note that the Bill includes a duty on the assembly to protect the Welsh culture and its language.
  I also agree that there should be an explicit duty on the assembly to promote and sustain the interests of rural areas. That is not without precedent. For example, the Environment Act 1995 places a duty on the national park authorities to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities, and to co-operate with public agencies whose functions include the promotion of economic and social development in rural areas. Furthermore, the English Countryside Commission does a great deal of valuable work in co-ordinating efforts to sustain rural areas. Therefore, there are lessons to be learned from over the border.
  Given the current disastrous state of agriculture and the need for urgent action given the forthcoming changes to the common agricultural policy, there has never been such an urgent need for a strategic all-Wales approach to rural life and matters rural. I believe that the assembly could be just the vehicle for that.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Stormont parliamentary system had control of agriculture in Northern Ireland. If it was still in existence, does he believe that Northern Ireland would have got out of the mess created by BSE, or would it have been caught by the general ban on United Kingdom beef products?
  Mr. Llwyd: I am not sure about that particular aspect, but, with great respect, the Welsh Assembly will be based on good will. For historical reasons, the hon. Member's country is different from mine—
  Mr. Ross: There was plenty of good will.
  Mr. Llwyd: That may be the case, but probably the answer is no. That is the answer he is looking for. I believe that there will be a far greater spirit of co-operation in the assembly and when those who were previously doubtful have been persuaded to support it, we will make it a strong powerhouse for Wales.
  When adequately planning any strategy for rural areas, one must consider the infrastructure and the remoteness. Any solutions will have to consider matters such as the sparsity factor. We in parts of north and mid-Wales feel particularly vulnerable at the present time given the announcement that the Development Board for Rural Wales will be subsumed into the new powerhouse.
  We must ensure that the decades of experience and expertise built up by the board are not dissipated, and that the rural affairs do not become an small adjunct of that new powerhouse. I am sure that the Secretary of State has already received many representations about that and I am sure he will bear them in mind during the passage of the Bill.

  863
  Hon. Members will be aware that I have campaigned with other right hon. and hon. Members across the House to ensure that the lion's share of inward investment is not always tempted to the east of Wales. The announcement of a moiety of spending to be assured to the west of Wales is most welcome. I hope that the new body will pick up where the DBRW and the Welsh Development Agency left off. I also trust that its progress will be closely monitored by the national assembly.
  I hope that the new powerhouse will actively assist the rural areas and that its remit will be extended to assist agriculture and related projects. That is extremely important, bearing in mind the future for the industry.
  I reiterate the concerns about health that I expressed at the most recent sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee. With the greatest respect, I cannot understand why there is such an unseemly rush to reconfigure the health trusts before the assembly is up and running. To do that a matter of days before the establishment of that assembly is almost bizarre.
  In the Grand Committee, in answer to a specific question about that, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), said that it would be right for the Welsh Office to
  "start that agenda, to get the changes under way, and then to give the Welsh Assembly the opportunity review matters."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 18 November 1997; c. 3.]
  Exactly what will it review? Will it review something that had been reviewed a few days before? That does not make a great deal of sense, and that decision should be reconsidered. If the assembly were perverse, it could reverse everything that had been done a few days previously. What would happen then, I wonder?.
  I support everything that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said about the voluntary sector. She is absolutely right. I am pleased that the Bill lays a responsibility on the assembly to launch a scheme to promote the interests of all those voluntary organisations that are so important in everyday Welsh life.
  As I understand it, the scheme will specify how the assembly proposes to provide assistance to and monitor and consult with the voluntary agencies. In due course, the assembly will provide financial assistance for such voluntary organisations in Wales. The role of such organisations is becoming more and more important in the delivery of core services, and I trust that their voice will be heard loudly and clearly and that their views will be brought into the heart of Government decision making. I welcome the fact that that is referred to in the Bill.
  The importance of links with the European mainland have been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Jones). It is vital that those links should be strengthened. I should like them to include observer status in the Council of Agricultural Ministers. I would prefer to follow the Scottish model, and I am sure that there will be a considerable debate about that in due course. As the benefits accrue to Wales from having a regional voice in Europe, there is no doubt that that will make it far easier for us to be heard in Brussels on a particular matter, and to have the right to hear early on about what is proposed there.
  864
  The lander have benefited greatly from such an arrangement, as I witnessed a few years ago when I visited the lander parliaments and Catalonia with the Welsh Grand Committee.
  It is equally important that Wales is seen for what it really is—a nation, or region in Eurospeak. An enhanced presence in Brussels is extremely important. An expanded Wales-European centre would be most welcome so that Wales enjoys a level playing field when encouraging inward investment from other parts of the European Union.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys MÔn has flagged up the idea of the fast track legislative system. That could be of great assistance to the workings of the assembly. I hope that it will be accepted by the Committee which will discuss the Bill.
  As the Bill receives its Second Reading and proceeds into Committee, I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will look upon it as an opportunity to deliver a better form of government for Wales, which is more accountable and which will, ultimately, stand it in good stead as we approach the millennium and beyond.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am proud to speak in a debate on such a truly historic and momentous occasion, because we have the ability to vote for a national assembly for Wales. As a Labour Member, I should like to devote my speech to putting the cultural, patriotic and national case for a national Welsh Assembly. I realise also that there is a very strong, even overwhelming, democratic case and even—on this I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands—an economic case for establishing an assembly. It is essential that we develop a class of politicians and civil servants who will concentrate on developing a strategy for economic regeneration in Wales.
  I will confine my remarks to the cultural case for a Welsh Assembly. Putting the Bill into its historical perspective, it bears comparison with such momentous dates in Welsh history as the statute of Rhuddlan, in 1286; the Act of Union of 1536; such developments in Welsh culture as the Bible's translation into Welsh—an act that has some geographical significance for my constituency; developments in the 18th and 19th centuries leading to administrative devolution; and, in recent years, establishment of the Welsh Office.
  The Bill is part of a sequence of events and marks a change in the relationship between Wales and Britain. Given the unitary nature of the British state and the fact that we do not have a written constitution, it would be idle to pretend that the work of reforming the relationship between Wales, Britain and the other countries of the United Kingdom will not be a difficult task. Awkward issues will be raised.
  In the right spirit—a spirit of confidence which the assembly will engender—there is no reason why we cannot overcome the practical difficulties and awkward questions that were so eloquently asked, in such a penetrating manner, by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
  If I have a quarrel with my two distinguished hon. Friends—bearing in mind that I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli experience of the

  865
  legal profession, as we are both barristers—it is that I normally confine my worst points until after the jury delivers the verdict. Surely there was a case for confining comments on awkward and perhaps intractable questions until after the verdict had been delivered by the Welsh people. Nevertheless, I accept that they have promoted a principled debate, and the questions that they and others have asked will have to be answered in Committee.
  Devolution has been an important aspect of Labour party policy for many years. Keir Hardie himself promoted the idea of home rule. We have heard in this debate that the Liberal party and David Lloyd-George progressed the idea of home rule through the ill-fated Cymru Fydd movement. In recent years, S. 0. Davies and Jim Griffiths—Labour Members' predecessors—were proponents of devolution.
  It is essential that a national assembly is established so that Wales is recognised as a distinctive cultural and historical community. A nationalist and patriotic case can be made for an assembly, but it is nationalism that is positive and not mutually exclusive. Establishing an assembly is a recognition that different nations inhabit this island, and that Britain is a state, not a nation.
  Establishing an assembly is part of a move towards a decentralised model of Europe. Is it not heartening that Wales will have the opportunity to be in the vanguard of that movement? Wales—the cradle of the industrial revolution, the Labour party and the national health service—will now be in the vanguard of the movement towards democratic decentralised government. The Welsh national assembly will be established one whole year before a similar body is established in Scotland.
  We will have a magnificent opportunity to raise both Wales's profile and our confidence as a nation. Much has been made of the prosperity gap between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, and one of the assembly's great priorities will be to address that disparity. There is also a confidence gap. The historical fact, however, is that we will soon have a Welsh Assembly—the ultimate symbol of Welsh national identity.
  I should like the national assembly to foster a self-confidence that is not elitist or based on language. There is also much room for improvement in Wales—I speak as a Welsh speaker—in democratising some Welsh institutions which are too beholden to the vested interests of the Welsh-speaking elite. I should like the assembly to attack that type of democratic deficit in Wales. We have an opportunity to forge a new sense of citizenship, in partnership not only with local authorities but with the people of Wales.
  Cardiff is a truly European city. We also have a magnificent university, which is unique in its federal structure and its history. It was built by the workers of Wales, over many years, on the basis of voluntary contribution. We also have a language that is among the oldest in Europe. We must create a culture of bilingualism which is not exclusive, and a sense of ownership—in both English-speaking and Welsh-speaking communities—of our language.
  Our film and television industry is flourishing, as is our popular music. In Mold, we have Theatr Clwyd, a national theatre of Wales, which I hope will go from strength to strength. Culture in Wales is flowering, and the symbolic act of establishing the assembly can only assist in continuing the process.
  866
  It is significant that, a few weeks ago, no less a person than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport addressed a London conference on the importance of culture—in its widest sense—in fostering a creative economy and a sense of citizenship. Many aspects of national life depend not on material well-being but on a feel-good factor in its broader sense. Ability to participate in the arts should be available across the board. Much can be done, and a great opportunity is before us.
  On a point of detail, clause 22 and schedule 2 do not provide for responsibility for broadcasting to be transferred to the Welsh Assembly. Although there are undoubtedly practical difficulties in such a transfer, I should like S4C to be made the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. We should be moving in Wales towards becoming a more mature democracy and a truly bilingual society, in which people are not oversensitive to the prospect of such institutions—which many would say hold an advantageous position—being the responsibility of our national assembly. I do not believe that there is anything to lose from opening the process of democracy, even in Welsh language broadcasting.
  Wales has had some great sporting achievements. Glamorgan won the county championship this year, for example, and the rugby world cup will soon be held in Wales.
  I have not yet mentioned the more traditional aspects of Welsh culture—such as our eisteddfodau and our magnificent literature, in both Welsh and English. Welsh literature dates back to the 6th and 7th centuries, predating Chaucer. Although those aspects of Wales and Welsh culture have not received much prominence in this debate, they should be mentioned. We have a strong patriotic and cultural case for a Welsh Assembly.
  I shall conclude on two personal notes. Like many Welsh people, was brought up in England, and I salute the work of the Welsh communities in Liverpool and London who have for so many years kept alive the flame of Welsh culture and political identity. Together with millions of Welsh people, many involved in extractive industries such as coal mining and slate quarrying—that was my family's background—my family moved over the border to England. We had to—we had no choice. Surely the assembly will sound the death knell of the old saying, "If you want to get on, you have to get out."
  Finally, I, like many people, was very emotional on the night of the referendum. We knew that it was going to be close and it was. I accept that the groundwork had not been done: we should have had a constitutional convention like the Scottish one to iron out the difficulties. That was not done, but the Government are doing the best that they can in a spirit of pragmatism and reason to overcome the awkward practical questions, and I feel confident that they will succeed. Around 3 am, my seven-year-old daughter, on her way to bed, asked "Ydi'r bobol na am ennill?", which means "Are the no people going to win?" At that stage, the fate of Wales hung in the balance, because it was not clear whether or not we were going to win.
  There is room for saying that, if we had lost that vote, the future of Wales as a distinct cultural entity would have been in doubt. When my daughter awoke the following morning, I was pleased to be able to announce that there was a new dawn—the yes people had won. Wales has for the first time

  867
  in its history an opportunity to have an elected body—a truly Welsh national assembly. I welcome the Bill and, together with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall vote yes in the Lobby tonight with alacrity.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. William Ross: There will be those who are somewhat surprised to find an Ulster Unionist Member of Parliament taking part in this debate, but I speak as a United Kingdom Member of Parliament. I also speak as a Member of Parliament representing the one part of the United Kingdom that has experience of a devolved institution.
  I was further incited to take part in the debate by the comments of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). I trust that the Welshmen here will excuse my pronunciation of the hon. Gentleman's constituency—I am inclined to get Welsh pronunciations as far wrong as they get the Irish ones. I try occasionally to pronounce Welsh place names, but I fear that all I do is send the Welsh people listening into gales of laughter. I hope that I will be excused if my pronunciation never gets quite up to the mark.
  The Minister of State said in a recent speech in Northern Ireland that he believed that
  "the new context created by devolution in Scotland and Wales can be very helpful to us. We need to take account of the new institutions there in our thinking. We have a great deal to learn from what is happening there.
  Given that it was a chap from Pembroke called Strongbow who did a great deal to set off some of the problems in Ireland, it is always welcome to have another Welshman—albeit one of Irish extraction—offering us advice in the modern age.
  The whole question whether it is possible to have devolved government in a unitary state is not new, and we in the Ulster Unionist party have a strong attachment to devolution. However, judging by some of the remarks made this evening, there seems to be some confusion as to the difference between a devolved parliamentary or administrative system within a unitary state and a federal system. The two are poles apart. I have often thought that if we had had a more equitable distribution of the population between the four component parts of the United Kingdom, we might have considered a federal structure. It is, unfortunately, an historical fact that England's population is so overwhelmingly large in relation to that of the rest of the UK that it is not possible to create a sensible federal structure in this country.
  We have made various efforts to have devolution in Ireland and elsewhere, but it is interesting to note that each of those efforts has had a different basis. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 kept a few powers and devolved everything else, whereas the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 devolved some powers and kept the rest and as a result very different sets of powers were devolved on each occasion. I am always surprised at how those who debate matters such as this appear to be adamantly opposed to looking across the Irish sea to the experiences and lessons lying open and evident to all. I sometimes wonder whether people are not deliberately closing their eyes; if they opened them, they might become more clearly aware of the consequences of their policies.
  868
  In the island of Ireland, we have had both devolved institutions and complete separation. I appreciate that the UK Government have always been concerned about the western seaboard of Great Britain—the geopolitical needs of this country were such that they always wanted to keep a toehold in Ireland. That is a consideration of centuries-old standing and I do not believe that it has changed to this very day. Eventually, however, they failed to keep all of the island within the UK, and the Republic became a separate state.
  Far too many people forget that originally the 1920 Act set up two devolved institutions—one in Dublin and the other in Belfast. The Dublin one met but once; it never came back because it was taken over by the revolutionary Dail Eireann, which has existed from that day to this. The way in which the Republic gained self-governance was totally different from what happened in Belfast. Belfast was intent on remaining within the kingdom, and the Unionists there made it their business to ensure that they used the devolved institution to keep themselves within the kingdom.
  Despite all the glowing remarks about devolved institutions and about separation bringing prosperity, the Republic of Ireland failed socially and economically. Anyone who looks at it cold-bloodedly will accept that. Only in recent years, when its Government were able to get a large amount of money on an annual basis from the Common Market did the Republic improve its social and economic position. The Republic made good use of the money that it received—of that there is no doubt. It is no part of the Unionist creed to want an impoverished Irish Republic—we would prefer to see it prosperous and wealthy, because then some of the difficulties we have experienced might disappear.
  I believe that when we look at how devolved institutions were used in Northern Ireland to keep it within the United Kingdom, we can only assume that we will see a steady development towards a time when politics in both Scotland and Wales will become more constitutional in nature than has hitherto been the case. That is the fundamental division in Northern Ireland—the question asked is, "Which nation do you belong to?" Eventually, we will see unionist and nationalist politics in both Scotland and Wales.
  In those circumstances, the remarks of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will become more relevant, because he described the sorts of fistfuls of grit and filings that can be tossed into the machinery. No one need think that this is going to be an easy passage.
  I bear no ill will towards Plaid Cymru or the Scottish nationalists; indeed, I get on well with both groups. I am under no illusions but that they are nationalist parties, just as I am under no illusions but that the sister party of the Labour movement, the SDLP, is a nationalist party. The long-term objectives of all these parties are very different from mine. We should clearly understand where these people are coming from and to what they aspire. They will use every weapon put in their hands to gain their objectives.
  That is why I have asked three times in the House—once of a Welsh Office Minister, once of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and again today—a question that has not yet received an answer, but which must be answered by word or by deed. It is a simple question: in these

  869
  devolved institutions, will Labour members believe in the unionist cause? Will they put the Union first, just as the people of Northern Ireland, no matter what their social class, have had to put the Union first? To do that, they have had to submerge the social and economic divisions in their communities.
  The Minister may think he can escape that question; the Labour party may think that it can escape it. Labour may do so during the passage of this Bill, but once Labour members are elected to the assemblies, they will not be able to escape the question. What they are will rapidly become apparent to those who elected them.
  Mr. Dalyell: The same will be true of all party members, including Conservative party members.
  Mr. Ross: There would be no devolved assemblies if there were no nationalists demanding them.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: That is quite unhistorical. The first demands for an all-Wales collective body were made back in the 1880s by Joseph Chamberlain, a Birmingham Member of Parliament and a prominent Liberal. Surely the hon. Gentleman realises—the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) will correct me if I am wrong—that the Welsh nationalist party was not even founded until the 1920s, some 40 years later. His proposition is therefore absurdly unfactual.
  Mr. Ross: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, given the Liberals' reputation for supporting nationalism in Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Jenkin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. By responding to nationalism in Ireland, the Liberals were attempting to square the constitutional circle. They realised that, to make logical sense of their proposals for Ireland, they would have to offer assemblies also to other parts of the UK. The hon. Gentleman's initial assertion was thus perfectly correct.
  Mr. Ross: This is rapidly turning into a "one man against the rest" type of debate—possibly with one exception.
  Mr. Livsey: The Liberal party has an honourable record of democracy. The Liberals were not just pursuing the Irish question in the 1880s and 1890s. They wanted home rule for Scotland and Wales too, albeit in the context of the United Kingdom. Had those policies been pushed through, and had Gladstone not been thwarted at the time, these islands would have been far more peaceful than they have been.
  Mr. Ross: It is evident that the Liberal party has learnt nothing from the passage of time. Liberals have never really understood the driving force behind Irish nationalism and republicanism.
  The Labour party, by contrast, has at least learnt one or two lessons from Ireland. The electoral system that Labour is setting up makes it quite clear that there will be majority rule, notwithstanding the checks and balances being built into the system. Labour is also making it impossible for those completely opposed to the continued existence of the UK to sit in the assembly, by means of the oath that is to be introduced. I was glad that Madam Speaker took a strong line recently with the two
  870
  gentlemen who were elected to this place but who have chosen not to come to here. I am glad to note that the Labour party supports Madam Speaker's decision.
  Labour Members should, however, remember that there are also those who have been prepared to take the oath, or to affirm, in Northern Ireland bodies with what they have described as mental reservations. I dare say that there will be others in coming years who will have similar mental reservations.
  Neither the Government nor this House has fully absorbed the implications of proportional representation. Minor groups—which will use the iron filings I mentioned before—will get elected and will grow in size as time goes on.
  It seems that the Labour party is intent on keeping firm control over who gets elected. The list system is an excellent way of keeping people firmly in line. The problem is that we will end up with assembly members carrying completely different sets of responsibilities, regional and individual. That will lead to difficulties.
  Many questions remain unanswered, not least why the Conservative party is so much against devolution for Wales and Scotland and so much in favour of a disruptive and divisive form of devolution for Northern Ireland.
  We need to discuss how this devolved body will fit into the economic union with Westminster. Will it be possible for the assembly to be dissolved or dismissed? After all, 75 per cent. of the Welsh population are either not in favour or did not think it worth voting. Has the House considered the possibility of an elected majority in the assembly deciding to vote it out of existence, or just resigning, as happened in Northern Ireland in 1972? The whole subject needs debating on the Floor of the House.
  I shall have great pleasure in supporting the motion that calls for that to happen, but given the Ulster Unionist party's long history of attachment to devolution, we will not go along with the amendment this evening. There remains much to be discussed, and I favour a long period of discussion on the Floor of the House. We can all learn a great deal from each other and from our experiences. The more we learn, the more likely we are to come to sensible conclusions.
  8.26 pm
  Ms Jackie Lawrence: I take great exception to any suggestion that I support the break-up of the Union. I am sure that all Labour Members agree that that is not our intention at all. The Bill will strengthen the Union, by virtue of the fact that one of the main threats to democracy in our country has been the feeling that people have been disfranchised for the past 20 years in Wales. Consequently, they have failed to turn out at elections, except for general elections, because they have felt that their voice has not been heard. This Bill will redress that grievance and give them a real chance to feel that they are part of government.
  I want to reinforce the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) for culture. It tends to get forgotten in these debates. I was born in England but have gone to live in Wales. In sixth-century Britain, in a place called Cartraeth, the Welsh poet Aneurin wrote about a family of 24 brothers who went to war while their one sister stayed at home waiting for her

  871
  brothers to return. It is all described in a famous Welsh poem. When I learned Welsh, it was brought home to me that Welsh history is also part of my history as an English person. The place is now known as Catterick, in Yorkshire; in the sixth-century, everyone in Britain spoke Welsh. It is the Brythonic language from which the very word Britain comes. It may be that Opposition Members feel that that gives their contributions to the debate more substance since none of them represents a Welsh constituency. Henry VII, the founder of the Tudor dynasty, was born in Wales. That may come as a shock to Conservative Members.
  I want to refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: May I add to the Britishness of the issue raised by my hon. Friend? She has been talking about the first recorded Welsh poem, "The Song of Aneurin", which dates from about 600 AD. There are two curious facts about it. First, not only were England and Wales Welsh-speaking at that time—so was lowland Scotland. Aneurin was born and based in Edinburgh. The court he had left in order to fight the invading Anglo-Saxons at Catterick was in Edinburgh, because, as I have said, southern Scotland was Welsh-speaking. It is that Aneurin after whom Aneurin Bevan is named because David Bevan, Aneurin Bevan's father, was interested in early Welsh poetry.
  Ms Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.
  Mr. Morgan: Not a lot of people know that.
  Ms Lawrence: In the approaches to the Pennines, which is the area from which I originally come, farmers have a system for counting sheep which uses specific words. Those words are almost identical to mediaeval Welsh, lending support to the fact "that much of Britain owes a great deal to Wales.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was rather scathing in his comments on the Minister's lifelong commitment to political action. I became politically active 25 years ago when I was a parent with three young children. I was tired of seeing middle-aged men in pinstripe suits making decisions that had absolutely no bearing on what I wanted for myself or my family. Looking at the Opposition Benches today, one could be forgiven for thinking that nothing has really changed.
  Mr. Jenkin: It seems that the hon. Lady is lamenting the fact that, over the centuries, most of Britain has been swamped by a European culture of one sort or another—the Saxons, the Romans, the Danes, the Flemings and the French. I am afraid that Britain is a multicultural society, but Wales is a welcome part of it.
  Ms Lawrence: Indeed, we are a multicultural society. I was not referring at any stage to invasion from abroad; I was simply trying to impress upon Conservative Members the debt that they owe to the Welsh nation for what England, and Britain generally, has become.
  On a more serious note, among the submissions that I have received about this Bill, the one from the Welsh Local Government Association makes a fundamental point. It says:
  872
  "Let there be no doubt, the success of Wales depends on the vitality of its local democracy. It is only through democracy that people in Wales gain the experience of sharing in the control of all those circumstances that affect them as individuals and as communities."
  I am pleased to say that clauses 110 to 114, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), will go a long way to address those fears, but there can be no greater condemnation of what has happened in Wales during the 18 years of Conservative government than the fact that local democracy was whittled away and powers were centralised or handed over to unelected bodies full of Secretary of State appointees.
  Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Lawrence: I will not give way at this stage.
  Many appointments made by the Secretary of State were of people who had been firmly rejected by the Welsh electorate in local and parliamentary elections. A prime example was the appointment of a former Member for Cardiff, Central almost immediately after his defeat at the 1992 election as chairman of the local health authority. One might say that that is jobs for the boyos. Such action demonstrated a blatant disregard for the will and opinion of the people of Wales. The establishment of the assembly will, at last, provide the means for those opinions to be translated into open and accountable action.
  The Welsh people have always shown a great commitment to public service and to public services. For example, community hospitals have been established throughout Wales, libraries have been set up in mining communities and local education authorities provide nursery places for more than 90 per cent. of four-year-olds. No special funding from the Government has been allocated to nursery provision; provision has been made because of a local commitment to education. That local choice and prioritisation was ignored and overruled centrally by the previous Government in their determination to put in place nursery vouchers throughout the United Kingdom—robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  Under the current Government plans for the Welsh Assembly, the £7 billion allocated to Wales from central Government will be distributed by the people of Wales for the benefit of the people of Wales, according to their priorities. It will not be the same as under the former Government, when it was distributed by a Secretary of State for Wales who did not even represent a Welsh constituency. It was done behind closed doors according to criteria set by the Government, often ignoring the wishes and aspirations of the 2 million-plus people who live in Wales.
  It has been accepted by everyone in the House—and it was acknowledged in yesterday's debate—that there has already been significant administrative devolution to Wales. When Welsh Members ask about health, education, agriculture, roads, planning and the environment and employment and economic development initiatives, they are directed to Ministers at the Welsh Office rather than to their centralised departmental counterparts at Westminster. However, Opposition Members may not be fully aware of that, since none of them represents a Welsh constituency—or a Scottish constituency for that matter.
  There is a specific Welsh dimension to all those policy areas, not least because we are a bilingual society. That is acknowledged in the administrative devolution.

  873
  What is lacking—the Bill will finally establish this—is democratic devolution to accompany that administrative devolution. That is important to address the concerns of organisations such as the Welsh Local Government Association and to meet the needs of areas such as mine in Pembrokeshire where, often, we feel peripheral and forgotten.
  That peripherality has been accentuated during the past two decades with the former Government's dogmatic insistence on market forces ruling the day. During the past few years, different areas of the United Kingdom have, within the context of unregulated markets, been effectively like hyenas round a carcase. Those nearest the carcase get the largest bite, while those on the outside are left with the remnants, if anything. The establishment of the assembly and the restoration of democracy to Welsh decision making at strategic level will address that deficit for Wales in general and for rural areas such as Preseli, which I represent.
  At the beginning of my speech, I quoted from the Welsh Local Government Association which said:
  "The success of Wales depends on the vitality of its local democracy."
  Nowhere is that more evident than in employment and job creation. As democracy has been removed during the past 18 years, so there has been a slide in Wales's gross domestic product as a percentage of the UK average. Pembrokeshire provides, yet again, a graphic example. In 1984, Pembrokeshire's GDP per head was 84 per cent. of the UK average; in 1994, it was just under 72 per cent.
  In practical terms, that means that one in four males of working age in the town of Milford Haven is without work. Oil refineries and Ministry of Defence establishments have closed. We have had to watch the impact of a catalogue of disasters for farmers, including BSE and unfair treatment by the former Government compared with that given to farmers in England. Admittedly the former Government put in place a west Wales task force to attempt to address the Ministry of Defence closures. That body was given a title but, unfortunately, it had no significant funds to tackle the unemployment problem. Despite the noble efforts of its director, it was labelled the west Wales task farce.
  For west Wales, the assembly offers the chance for a real voice and positive action. The new economic powerhouse, under the auspices of the assembly, will have a remit to address our specific problems. Not only will it finally give our area the benefit of the expertise of the former Development Board for Rural Wales—which, unfortunately, did not cover Pembrokeshire—the new body will have a greater remit to assist indigenous businesses. That is vital, as it is those indigenous businesses which provide real hope for sustainable economic development and the resulting job creation.
  The Country Landowners Association has made clear its view that the Assembly offers
  "great opportunity to provide better government in Wales and a strong voice for Wales in Britain and in Europe."
  That reinforces my point that there are more microbusinesses in rural than in urban areas. There is evidence that, until now, those businesses have been, as the CLA put it, ill served by the bodies set up by the previous Administration. The CLA has 6,000 members in Wales, the majority of whom own 100 acres or less, but they account for more than half of the rural area of Wales and they are active participants in the economy of rural areas.
  874
  In January, a group called the business forum on devolution—whose members include the chairman of an independent television company, the chief executive of a large construction company and the head of one of Wales's largest international haulage companies—came out firmly in support of devolution. It campaigned for a yes vote in the referendum on the basis that a Welsh Assembly would offer real hope for improving Wales's economic position, which has suffered such a decline during the past two decades.
  Those examples—from local government, small rural businesses and the larger business sector—demonstrate the considered opinion that a Welsh Assembly will give Wales a necessary economic boost, prepare it for the future and ensure that it is not trapped in a time warp.
  Talking of time warps, I remember listening to the radio when the date of the general election was announced and hearing, with some amusement, that Scottish Members remained Members for a couple of days longer than either Welsh or English Members once the writ was moved. I recall being told that it was because time had to be allowed for a messenger on horseback to ride from Westminster to Edinburgh to deliver the writ—a rather amusing parliamentary example of a time warp, which there may or may not be moves afoot to Change.
  Mr. Morgan: It did not do the Tories any good, did it?
  Ms Lawrence: Whatever, the process of government evolved. It did so in the past and will continue to do so in future.
  Mr. Dalyell: I want to put on the record the fact that we were not paid any more.
  Ms Lawrence: That is reassuring.
  The process of government will continue to evolve if it is to meet the changing needs of the people of Britain. Unfortunately, Conservative Members have demonstrated their reluctance to remove themselves from their own particular time warp and work positively and practicably towards meeting the needs of all the people of Britain.
  For the people of Wales, the establishment of a Welsh Assembly will provide the means finally to get up off our knees after 18 years of deprivation and marginalisation. It will prepare us to tackle the demands of the 21st century.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I shall enjoy this opportunity to put the Conservative party's case, as we have been vilified for two days. I am part Welsh: my mother's family comes from Wrexham, my house looks across the border and I cross into Wales every day.
  I do not recognise the Wales that has been described by Labour Members. I have known the town of Wrexham since I was four. It has been transformed in the past 20 years. The simple truth is that the last Labour Government and the following four Conservative Governments were faced with the fact that the two main pillars of the economy—coal and steel—had collapsed.
  The institutions brought in by the Conservative Government and especially by a decisive, strong Secretary of State have produced huge dividends. It is ironic that

  875
  President Chirac has today welcomed the largest automobile investment into Europe since the Labour Government came to office, but it has gone to Valenciennes, not Britain. Last time Toyota was looking at this country, David Hunt went in person to Tokyo and met Dr. Toyoda himself; he played a crucial role in bringing Japanese investment to this country. That should not be dismissed.
  Wrexham has been transformed, new industries have developed and prosperity will follow. It will take time, considering the very low depths to which Wales fell following the collapse of its old industries. There is no public support—no general feeling in the parts that I know in north-east Wales and on the border—for devolution to a distant talking house, probably somewhere in south Wales.
  Shropshire, Powys, Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Monmouthshire have similar economies. There is commonality in the activities of those areas. It seems to be the nationalist areas and the great and the good of Wales who are driving the devolution project. If hon. Members went to Oswestry market they would not find anyone who wanted a far away assembly; they want lower taxes and lower business rates, as we have heard today. That was reflected in the referendum.
  I know that raising this point grieves Labour Members, but the referendum was a fiddle. It is outrageous that a move that will irrevocably alter the United Kingdom's constitution should be pushed through without consulting 85 per cent. of the population.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, Parliament being sovereign, it did not dictate that there should be a threshold for the referendum? In those circumstances, is it not a case of put up or shut up?.
  Mr. Paterson: No, it is not. The constitution of the United Kingdom belongs to all the people of the United Kingdom. Labour is desperately hanging on to the tiddly widdly majority it achieved and ignoring the real result. The eastern side of Wales voted overwhelmingly against an assembly—for example, Monmouthshire at 67.9 per cent. and Vale of Glamorgan at 63.3 per cent. I will not list all the areas, but I cannot resist mentioning Cardiff—the capital city where the gravy train will spill forth even though the negotiations have gone wrong—where there is not overwhelming support for an assembly.
  I declare an interest as I sit on the Welsh Affairs Committee. We have interesting meetings. The consensus appears to be that those who are in public life in Wales and those who are involved with the great public institutions are in favour of an assembly, but the nearer we get to the coal face—the people in the real world trying to earn a living—the more different is the view.
  The chairman of the Welsh Confederation of British Industry, Mr. Ian Spratling, said:
  "Devolution will overburden business with costly bureaucracy, which will slow down and politicise important economic decisions."
  That quotation appeared in The Guardian in August. Last week, Dr. Elizabeth Haywood, the regional director of the CBI, said:
  "There is no economic imperative for establishing a Welsh Assembly."
  Mr. Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that, during the referendum campaign, the CBI was split over
  876
  whether to support a Welsh Assembly? It therefore decided to take no specific line. That is a matter of record and he should take account of that.
  Mr. Paterson: That is a pretty feeble endorsement.
  When I asked Dr. Haywood whether a Welsh Assembly would be good value, she said:
  "It has not been proven to us that it is good value."
  Ms Lawrence: As a colleague on the Welsh Affairs Committee, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I pointed out that part of the evidence given in public by Dr. Haywood was incorrect. She raised the issue of planning permission for a new power station in the Pembroke area and said that she believed it to be a planning issue. If fact, the matter would have been determined by the Department of Trade and Industry under the Electricity Acts. I found that disconcerting and said so. If that is her level of understanding of the responsibility of an assembly, it is difficult to take account of opinion based on that misunderstanding.
  Mr. Paterson: As the hon. Lady's constituents voted no, I shall speak for them. I also speak for business, having spent my whole career in business.
  Dr. Haywood continued:
  "It has not been proven to us that it is good value …Many businesses see it as an overgrown local authority, a large county council. It is very difficult to see why that is going to be beneficial."
  We have heard much about quangos today. Dr. Haywood also said that quangos
  "delivered very good value for money in most instances".
  The recent history of western Europe shows that we need less government, thus fewer politicians and bureaucrats, which would mean less tax and less interference. One of the biggest blasts of fresh air on the Welsh Affairs Committee was a visit from the Federation of Small Businesses. They made it clear that the federation did not see salvation in another tier of government or in more interference. The federation wants less government and less tax.
  The assembly will present the average constituent with a problem. If he has a grievance, to whom should he go? Should he write to his district councillor, his directly elected assembly man, or one of the party hacks who is in post because of proportional representation, which has been exposed for what it is by Conservative Members? Should he go to his Member of Parliament who, apparently, will have plenty of time on his hands? He could even go to his Member of the European Parliament. There is going to be a muddle. The proposals have not been thought out. It is not even clear what the great panjandrum himself—the Secretary of State for Wales—will get up to. That is sad, because the past few years have shown that having a decisive Secretary of State has worked well and provided real advantages.
  Clauses 39, 80 and 107 contain real grounds for conflict. Let us move away from the starry world that we are now in—a world where there is a Government formed by one party with a large majority, who will probably also get a majority in the assembly. Let us read those clauses again, imagining a coalition in this Parliament and a hostile assembly—possibly a nationalist-dominated assembly, with one of the members of the coalition as Secretary of State. Those clauses do not make good

  877
  reading in such circumstances. When one makes major changes in business, one has a duty to exercise due diligence and to consider the worst case. I do not believe that the Bill takes account of the worst case.
  Quangos have been much criticised. They were created by Parliament and could have been reformed by Parliament. There is no reason why the nature of the quangos could not be brought back to the House for reform.
  I must mention the English, who have not been much discussed. I used to go to Czechoslovakia a great deal just after the wall came down. Whenever I went, the Slovaks were pushing for more from the Czechs and in the end the Czechs' patience snapped. It would be tragic if that happened in this case.
  Looking at the issue from Shropshire, I believe that the Barnett formula is beneficial for Wales. There is a fiscal deficit in Wales: according to the Library, £15.6 billion has been spent and £9.9 billion is raised locally, which gives a deficit of £5.7 billion. However, £609 more is spent on every Welshman than on every English person. That is accepted as long as the Union continues, but I already detect rumblings in England.
  In Shropshire, the council tax for a band D property was £665.69 last year. Over the border in Powys—a similarly sparsely populated rural county—it was only £426.29, or nearly £240 less, yet spending on education in Shropshire was £331.35 per head compared with a massive £474 in Powys.
  I am genuinely worried that the talk on the Labour Benches is divisive and will hype up English nationalism, which is currently dormant. This exercise depends on the acquiescence of the English. I urge Labour Front Benchers to be very careful, because everything will come tumbling down if the English do not acquiesce.
  There is a starry-eyed belief that 60 new assembly men, who will probably be former county councillors, will have wonderful powers. The powers of the assembly have been grossly exaggerated; for example, it has been suggested that the problems of the health service will be sorted out.
  I submit that the £100 million that it will cost to set up and run the assembly in the first four years could be spent in other ways. You could buy a district general hospital, fully equipped; you could buy 25,000 hip replacements; you could buy 2,000 ambulances; and with the £20 million annual running cost, you could pay for another 285 consultants or for 1,000 nurses. There has been much talk about improving care for the elderly. Suddenly, the 60 wonder men—this is the panto season—will come with their magic wands and sort out care in the community. I would rather see the £20 million annual running costs spent as follows: you could keep 1,130 people in a nursing home or 1,750 people in a residential home—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The term "you" refers to the occupant of the Chair and implies that the hon. Gentleman is drawing me into his argument. Perhaps he could refrain from doing so.
  Mr. Paterson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Finally, farming is in crisis in Wales. Surely the £100 million could be spent on farming rather than on what I believe will be a talking shop. I think the assembly
  878
  will be divisive and begin to break up the United Kingdom. It will be a distinct disadvantage to my constituents in that secondary legislation in the assembly will have a direct effect on them but I will have absolutely no influence on having it changed. I believe that we are creating a Europe of regions. I shall vote against the Bill.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), I can claim no Welsh connections, but the part of Cornwall that my family comes from yields to no Welsh valley in the depth and strength of its Celtic roots. I have lived in Cornwall long enough to know how people on the periphery of our United Kingdom can feel neglected and misunderstood by central Government, whatever the reality of their situation. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) spoke of the Unionist perspective, and I speak from the perspective of another region of the United Kingdom. The Bill is about more than Wales. With respect to some hon. Members who have spoken, I have to say that the Bill is about how we represent every part of this great Union of ours.
  Shortly after I was elected to Parliament this spring, I received a timely reminder of the damage that can be done if the representation of the far reaches of our country is mishandled. In 1497, a Cornish smith called An Goff roused his fellows and marched all the way to London to protest about the treatment of the Cornish tin miners and others. On the way, they made a strategic stop at Guildford. This summer, 500 years later, we re-enacted the skirmish that took place in Guildford between An Goff s men and the horse of Henry VII, in which, I am glad to say, the Cornish were victorious, as they were this summer. To commemorate the event, we unveiled a granite monument. As a result, there is a corner of Guildford that will be for ever Cornwall.
  Sadly, after their successful skirmish in Guildford, Goff s Cornishmen went on to London to take on the Government, where they were hanged, drawn and quartered. After my political skirmish in Guildford this spring, it was with some trepidation that I came here to take on the Government. However, times have changed and we do not resort to such violent methods.
  That march had a political message. I cannot fail to notice that at no time during the past 18 years did we see anyone marching from Wales to demand that the previous Government give them a Welsh Assembly. We have not seen a single banner unfurled in Hyde park saying, "Give Wales gender balance in politics." Some people have marched from Wales to Hyde park this summer. They were there to say, "Listen to us," because the new Government are not listening to people from Wales or any of the more distant regions.
  Mr. Ainger: Parliament is sovereign.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Indeed. If people had felt strongly about devolution during those 18 years, they would have marched to Parliament to protest. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) knows better.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  879
  There has been little evidence of support for the Bill. We can tell even more from the apathy that was shown in the referendum on 18 September. As has been pointed out, it was in many ways a false vote. It is fair to say that the new Government bought the result. They refused to provide money for both sides to put their case, as has always been customary in elections. The disparity between the spending of the yes and no campaigns was accentuated to the point of invalidating the result. Some £170,000 was spent on sending propaganda putting the Government's case to every household in Wales. The Government were frit at the prospect of the no campaign also having a chance to put its case to every household in Wales.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State has discovered that not everyone can be bought. Cardiff city council cannot be bought. That is a good lesson for him. I understand that he is offering it only £3.5 million. We should keep that in perspective. The Government are renowned for their extravagance. The wallpaper in the Lord Chancellor's apartments is to cost £60,000. That £3.5 million would barely cover the wallpaper bill when the new crowd came to redecorate Cardiff city hall. I do not blame the burgers of Cardiff city council for treating it as a piffling offer. I wish them well in their efforts.
  There is a more sinister way in which we fear that the Secretary of State plans to buy the future government of Wales, as he tried to buy the result of the referendum. I refer to clause 16, which provides that in the first instance the Secretary of State will set the level of salary for the new Assemblymen, many of whom will have been selected under the invidious party list system. There has been some debate about whether we should have a part-time or a full-time Assembly. With respect to our Welsh cousins, judging from the length of speeches that we have had in this debate, there will be no possibility of a part-time Assembly: debating in the new Assembly will definitely be a full-time occupation.
  I now turn to a worrying aspect. We heard from the Secretary of State that the party list system will be open and that the candidature selection will be open handed on the part of the Labour party. No doubt it will be as open-handed as the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman treated the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) when they had a famous disagreement. The truth is that it will not be a people's assembly, but a party assembly. It is very much the intention of the Labour party that it should be a Labour party assembly.
  In case that does not work, the powers of the assembly are very restricted. Clause 107 says quite explicitly:
  "If the Secretary of State considers that any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly would be incompatible with"
  certain obligations,
  "he may by order direct that the proposed action shall not be taken."
  It continues:
  "he may by order direct the Assembly to take… action"
  that he feels is required by other obligations of government and
  "he may by order revoke…legislation."
  So much for devolution—the Secretary of State is not elected by the people of Wales. He is an unelected head of Wales and he is verily the viceroy of the valleys.
  880
  I predict that the Secretary of State will build himself not an assembly, but a veritable viceregal palace. When he has ordered the wallpaper, I hope that when he orders the fabric he will consider the textile industry in Wales. I know a little about the textile industry in Wales as I used to order products from it. I have a very strong fear that the introduction of the minimum wage will cause severe job losses in that industry.
  Mr. Paterson: There are rumours in Oswestry that the carpet will cost £125 per foot. Is that good value?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: It is not good value in Oswestry. I have been to Shropshire and the people there have a savvy sense of good value. Nor will it be good value in Wales, particularly for those who lose their jobs. Earlier this year, when I asked the Minister about the effects of the minimum wage on employment in the clothing industry in Wales, he could not give me a single figure. Perhaps he will be able to do a little better tonight.
  If the people of Wales object to the level of the minimum wage, they will be able to do nothing about it in the Welsh Assembly. They will have to march on London to make their protest. We can well imagine the frustration that that will cause.
  We have heard many complaints about the previous Government, but we should not forget that a Conservative Home Secretary—the former Member for Penrith, Lord Whitelaw—instigated Welsh language television. The previous Government did not ignore Welsh culture.
  Having moved to a system of unitary authorities, the real effect of the Bill is to reinstate a second layer of local government. Let me make a point on behalf of the people I know in Cornwall and the people I represent in Guildford. If the people of Wales choose to have a super county council instead of county councils, that is their decision, but I ask the Government not to impose regional government on England as a result. People in Cornwall do not want to be dominated by Devon and Dorset, and people in Surrey do not want to be dominated by the much larger counties of Sussex and Kent.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: I am grateful for the chance to take part in what is undoubtedly an historic debate. There is no doubt that anyone glancing through "A Voice for Wales" will find it superficially attractive. The Prime Minister talks eloquently about the opportunity for the people of Wales to have control back over their own lives. The Secretary of State waxes lyrical about it being an opportunity. The rhetoric in the document is high, but its reality is low and its logic is deeply flawed.
  For members of my party, after not an astounding victory on 1 May, a little humility becomes us. After 18 years, it took us quite a long time to get quite so arrogant and quite so out of touch. Those qualities have come in just a few weeks to Labour Members. None the less, we should acknowledge that no constitution is perfect. Our own is far from perfect. Change is something that we should always acknowledge. Our constitution should continue to evolve.
  If we look at our nation state, we can recognise instantly that it is no natural phenomenon. It has arisen over hundreds of years; it is an historical achievement.

  881
  The sadness that I feel today is due to the fact that in a few moments we shall almost certainly begin to unravel that great historical achievement.
  Yesterday the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) spoke of the relevance of the United States. There is indeed such relevance in remembering how our constitution has evolved and the historic achievement. It was a row in the 18th century about a legal framework—a reaction to Britain's centralising authority—that led to the separation of the colonies of the United States from Britain. We are now two very different countries. I fear that today we are beginning on a path that may lead to the separation of England from Wales in the distant—or even not too distant—future.
  The purpose of the assembly, it is claimed, is somewhat symbolic: to give Wales a national identity. Although I do not agree with that, why not go the whole hog and give Wales the same as the Labour Government would give to Scotland? Where is the logic in denying to Wales what the Government are giving to Scotland?
  We could discuss such matters in greater detail if they were to be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House, but that has been denied to hon. Members. We might ask why. I suggest one reason: if one begins to examine the Bill in detail, one begins to realise that the Bill, like the White Paper, wants to look both ways. It wants to say to the people of Wales, "Yes, you may have a voice," but it provides no meaningful mechanism by which that voice can be delivered.
  At the same time, the Secretary of State for Wales said only yesterday:
  "This United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign. The provisions of the Bill do not challenge that sovereignty in any way—nor could they."—[Official Report, 8 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 671.]
  How can he say that? How can the Bill on the one hand be a voice for Wales and yet on the other not affect the sovereignty of the House? We find a clue to resolving that question in the Bill. We find the power for a Secretary of State to dismiss the voice of Wales at the behest of an English house in Downing street when the Prime Minister so demands.
  If the assembly is a voice for Wales, what right should Westminster have to question that voice? If Wales is to have a voice on its economy, should it not be allowed to decide its own economic policy? If Wales is to be allowed to decide its economic policy, why should it not be allowed to set its own level of minimum wage? After all, inward investment is directly related to the idea of a minimum wage. Yet it seems that Wales will be denied that, even though rhetorically it is told that it will have a voice.
  If Wales so wishes, why should it not be allowed to maintain the maintenance grant for students? Will the students of Wales be allowed such a voice? No, they will not. Will Wales be allowed to set its own level of taxation, as in Scotland? No, it will not. Where is the logic and consistency? Where is the argument that will convince the people of Wales that the Bill is workable and fair?
  Many hon. Members have mentioned Europe. The Bill and the White Paper talk about the people of Wales sharing the benefits. However, the people of Wales will not be invited to the table to decide how those benefits will be constructed. They can come to the table only by special invitation from Ministers. Are the people of Wales not good enough to come to the table? Why will they not
  882
  be allowed a proper representative voice that is enshrined constitutionally in the Bill? What is wrong with the people of Wales?
  The Bill has an inherent flaw. It contains the idea of taxation without representation, and we know where that will end. It is an end that I do not wish to see. The Bill is dangerous. It weakens—it does not strengthen. It offers a prospect, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, but it offers no mechanism to deliver that prospect. The Bill will breed, along with discontent, dissent.
  What will happen in the future when a Labour Government at Westminster make decisions about resources for the Welsh Assembly? What will happen when the Welsh Assembly is not controlled by a Labour majority? Will the people of Wales still be sure of getting the same resources that they have at the moment—20 per cent. more on average than the people of England have enjoyed for the past few years?
  The Bill raises questions about resources, but the people of Wales will find no comfort in clause 80. The Secretary of State is obliged only to make payments to the assembly
  "from time to time…as he may determine."
  The White Paper speaks of the Barnett formula; yet it is only mentioned in the explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill. Why? The people of Wales have a right to know today why the Barnett formula is not enshrined in the Bill.
  I am not against change—a state without change has no ability to conserve itself. However, I am against fraudulent claims and damage, and the Bill is wilfully damaging to our constitution. It is disingenuous. It will weaken us and undermine the strength of our country, our institutions and our sovereignty. It will dissolve the bonds of our Union. It promises a better tomorrow, but it does not provide the means to deliver it.
  The Bill will nurture discontent and dissent. It will lead, as hon. Members have said, to demand from some for separatism. If we vote for the Bill today, we shall encourage a canker in our constitution. The sadness of this historic night is that we shall begin to unravel the sovereignty of this great institution. We shall begin to separate the bonds of our Union and if the Bill receives a Second Reading we shall transfer the sovereignty of our country from certainty to a short-term lease.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We have enjoyed several excellent speeches in the debate, including that from my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). He spoke with passion, and it has been striking that passionate defences of our constitution have been greeted with derision and contempt by the supporters of the Bill. Never let it be said that there is no place for adversarial politics in post-Marxist Britain, because there is a deep divide between the pros and the antis in the devolution debate in Wales.
  Two speeches will live most in my mind. One was that of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who made an outstanding speech today. The other was that of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who asked a prophetic question: will the members of the assembly put the Union first? That is at the heart of the debate. The present constitutional arrangements have provided Wales with stability, and everyone must fear instability above all.

  883
  In the Bill, the Government have failed to provide a framework for the future stability of Wales, for stability within Wales, which has been left so divided on devolution, for the stability of Welsh finances, upon which public services, the Welsh Development Agency and reasonable levels of local taxation depend, and above all for the stability of Wales within the UK rather than as one of many regions of a federal Europe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) mentioned in his thoughtful comments.
  The Secretary of State referred to the supremacy of this Parliament, and said that it was sovereign. When he says that everyone recognises the sovereignty of this Parliament, he is not correct. During his speech yesterday, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) sidestepped the issue of the sovereignty of this Parliament. He says that sovereignty rests with the people in a democracy. It is true that, if the people wanted to overthrow the sovereignty of Parliament, they could do so, but it should not be our purpose to enable that to happen by mistake or by constitutional sleight of hand.
  The Government are technically correct in saying that the legal supremacy of Parliament is not affected by the Bill, but it may be affected by the events which follow as a result of the legislation. Sovereignty has a political quality. At a time when the Government are pressing through legislation that could pave the way for the separation of Wales from the rest of the United Kingdom, a clause reinforcing the ultimate supremacy of Parliament would cost nothing but would make the intentions of Parliament absolutely clear. If the Government believe so strongly in the Union, why should they be reticent about having that expressed in the Bill?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pointed out, we can only surmise from the Government's reluctance that the Secretary of State dares not confront the nationalists to whom he has sold his political soul in this endeavour. I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell), who told the House that he could not understand why his Government had got into bed with the nationalists. The Government are laying the foundations for confusion about the very basis of the United Kingdom's constitution.
  That confusion will not be the least resolved by loose comparisons with other nations. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) invoked the example of Spain. Spain should be a cautionary tale to reckless constitutional reformers. It is a seductive comparison for British regionalisers, because in Spain powers have been devolved progressively since 1978 to varying degrees and to different regions, as proposed in the United Kingdom.
  Spain is not a federation, but this rolling decentralisation has taken on its own momentum, with different entities seeking to reassert their differences from other provinces. Eight regions have established autonomous departments to conduct their own external policy. The Catalans, the Basques and even the Galicians have become ever more demanding of more autonomy. The lesson of Spain is clear: a rolling programme of devolution generates a process of inter-regional competition, leading to precisely the
  884
  instability that we should all fear. Yet such a rolling programme is the very essence of the Government's devolution policy. The Secretary of State confirmed this when he said yesterday:
  "devolution is not an event, but a process."—[Official Report, 8 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 677.]
  What is most striking about this debate is how many speakers have referred to—or made varying interpretations of—the referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West intervened several times with force to explain that there is a difference between an ordinary election and a decision about a major change in our constitutional settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge—Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) also spoke with eloquence and passion on this issue.
  Many hon. Members who support the Bill seem touchy on the subject. None of the supporters seems to want to acknowledge that many of the people who elected them probably voted no. The hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) all consign the half a million no voters to the status of non-persons in their Orwellian world of pro-assembly political correctness.
  Even Ministers should feel some pangs that the enthusiasm of Welsh people for this Bill is less than convincing. For the Secretary of State to say, as he did yesterday, that the referendum
  "did not produce a decisive decision, but the people of Wales gave a clear decision",—[Official Report, 8 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 672.]
  suggests that he has a shaky grasp of the English language as well as of the principles of democratic consent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) was right to describe the vote as false. The Secretary of State is fond of assuring us, as he did last week at Question Time:
  "75 per cent. of the people of Wales did not oppose the creation of the Assembly".—[Official Report, 3 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 338.]
  I invite the House to consider how much happier he would have been had the turnout been, say, only 40 per cent. with only 20 per cent. of the electorate voting yes. Using the sort of democratic logic of which Saddam Hussein would be proud, the right hon. Gentleman would cheerfully claim a yet bigger mandate for his plans—that 80 per cent. of the people did not oppose the creation of an assembly.
  Now that the text of the Bill is before us, nothing can detract from the brutal realities to which our reasoned amendment refers. The morning after the referendum, the Prime Minister promised
  "to allay the fears that were expressed by people."
  Why did he bother? Nothing in the Bill and nothing that we have heard in the last two days' debate has provided a crumb of comfort to those who declined to support the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly on 18 September. That is the basis of our reasoned amendment. Our contention remains that Wales has little or nothing to gain from devolution, but everything to lose.
  We heard much about money in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire described, each of the assembly's enthusiasts has the same

  885
  idea—that money will become available for their priority. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, is determined that the assembly should put right what he describes as the third-world road communications system in Wales. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) rightly asks where all the money is to come from. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) ably demonstrated how, when it comes to money, the assembly will be the poodle of Westminster. Money is likely to be at the heart of the disagreements between the majorities and the minorities in Wales, as well as a constant bone of contention between Whitehall and the assembly.
  Let us look again at Spain to see how they argue about money. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and others pointed out, the security of Welsh public spending so lavishly advertised in the White Paper is simply and altogether lacking in the Bill. Only now that the Bill has finally been published are the people of Wales allowed to know that, contrary to the assurances of the White Paper, the totality of the assembly's financing will be at the complete discretion of Whitehall.
  What does that mean in practice? It means that every spending programme and decision can be second-guessed by Whitehall. As now, public services in Wales will depend on an annual public spending settlement—a round negotiated in the Cabinet—but with one crucial difference: whereas today the Secretary of State sits at the Cabinet table as an equal, he will be but a cipher of his former self once he has devolved all his powers to the assembly. It is one thing for the Treasury to negotiate with a Minister who has all the levers of policy at his disposal—he can adjust his departmental priorities as a concession to the Treasury in return for securing the funding that he needs—but it is quite another for the Secretary of State for Wales to be faced with the new and unparalleled challenge of negotiating with the Treasury as a spending Minister with no policies under his control, and therefore no concessions to make.
  Money for any programme that does not meet the Treasury's requirement can be held hostage: a particular inward investment project, a new hospital or school, a road scheme will have to be bartered for, without any effective final appeal to the Cabinet where real Ministers with real jobs will be able to argue their case so much more effectively than the spending eunuchs from Scotland and Wales.
  Herein lies the most potent danger for Wales and its economic stability: as Wales loses its voice when it matters most, at the very moment when expectations have been so raised by the illusory prospects of devolution, what Furies will be unleashed in consequence and what plots will be hatched by nationalists eager to exploit the discontent? They will be the ultimate beneficiaries of any consequent disappointment or despair.
  Against that background, it is quite something to produce a Bill which provides for a national assembly for Wales and yet neither specifies precisely which powers are to be devolved nor does anything to reaffirm the supremacy of Parliament. The Bill makes no reference whatever to any means of restoring constitutional order in the event of breakdown. It appears to represent the reverse.
  886
  The Bill provides for the transfer of any—I emphasise any—function exercisable by Ministers of the Crown in relation to Wales. Is that devolution without boundaries? Will the Minister confirm that the Bill establishes a one-way street for such transfers? There appears to be no balancing power in the Bill to restore the powers of Westminster if necessary.
  Mr. Ron Davies: It is not needed.
  Mr. Jenkin: That bears out the foreboding of Government Members who have spoken of devolution in terms of the Balkanisation or unbundling of Britain, and have warned that we are embarking on a constitutional magical mystery tour. Their prescience before seeing the terms of the Bill was admirable. The chill of their words is now all the more striking.
  If there is to be devolved government for Wales, we want a scheme that will work. To achieve that, it must be clear, practical, have some prospect of stability and enjoy the broad and informed consent of the people. The Bill satisfies none of those criteria. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) was right to say that it was the start, not the end, of many years of argument.
  Far from giving Wales a voice in Britain and in Europe, where so many of the key decisions affecting the future of Wales are made, the Bill looks set to cut Wales off from the main stream of European and British politics, leaving the Welsh to voice the concerns of their now divided nation to nobody but themselves. Look what happened when Northern Ireland was given Stormont: the long tradition of politicians such as Castlereagh, who played a leading role in the governance of the United Kingdom, was directly ended. Northern Irish politics drew in upon itself, and the parties and politics ceased to have much to do with Westminster. Is that the new destiny for Wales? The Conservatives in Wales are determined to avert such a disaster.
  We shall fight for sense and certainty in Wales, whatever constitutional contraptions the Labour party is determined to create in pursuit of its sectional interests. Wales has played a long and vital role in the history of the United Kingdom, and it has benefited accordingly. That must continue. I should have thought that Ministers would assent to that proposition.
  We shall argue long and hard for the improvements that the Bill needs in the interests of Wales. We hope that the Government may yet find the humility to listen and to accept that their creations are not beyond perfection. Then we shall once again put our shoulder to the wheel of elections in Wales, to ensure that sensible voices are raised in the assembly for the benefit of Wales. That is our pledge to the House, to Wales and to the United Kingdom as a whole.
  We have set out our concerns and sought reassurances. The Prime Minister said that those reassurances would be forthcoming in the Bill, but none has emerged. That is why I invite right hon. and hon. Members to support the reasoned amendment and to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  9.34 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): We have had another day of wide-ranging, interesting debate. It is striking that the

  887
  Opposition have played the same old gramophone, which does not enable them to face reality. The reality is that there is not a single person on the Conservative Benches who can stand up as an elected Member from Wales. All we had was a diatribe against the general election result in May and the referendum result on 18 September. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There must be no interruptions from Front Benchers.
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank Labour Members for their contributions. I also thank the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). While I see little prospect of the fast-track procedure becoming reality, it is at least something that can be considered, a constructive contribution to the debate. All we have had from the Tories is a look back to the old British empire and the way in which the Union was organised in the 19th century.
  The turnout argument was repeated. We must consider it in the context of the fact that 80 per cent. of the people who voted in the general election voted for parties committed to a referendum on a Welsh Assembly. In the referendum, it is true that almost 50 per cent. of the people did not vote. It can be argued that those people were content and did not feel the need to take part, that they were bemused and did not feel they had enough knowledge to vote, or that they had full confidence in the Labour Government to deliver an assembly. The overall impact is that only 25 per cent. of people voted against having one.
  It is the job of this Parliament to carry through the White Paper, which had a majority, and to take account of the issues that have been raised. I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) all tried to advance positive proposals to improve the Bill.
  Mr. Shepherd: The Welsh electorate were directly asked whether they supported the Government's proposals. Only 25 per cent. said yes and 25 per cent. said no. As for the 50 per cent. who did not vote, every constitutional arrangement from that in ancient Greece onwards has accepted that that does not represent support for a proposition. That is the reality.
  Mr. Griffiths: The reality is that the House enacted a referendum Bill that set the rules. Those rules were met, and however much the hon. Gentleman may be disconcerted by the result, and upset that we did not set the sort of thresholds that he recalls from ancient Greece or wherever, the fact is that this House enacted a Bill to which the Welsh people responded positively. We are now moving forward.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Griffiths: The point is that the Bill will give the people of Wales what they have lacked for so long.
  888
  They will have proper controls over matters that closely affect their lives. It is about giving the assembly the wide-ranging powers of the Welsh Office, which have up to now all too often—this is what upsets Conservative Members—enabled a Secretary of State who has not been elected by Welsh constituents and who represents a minority party in Wales to have his way with the Welsh electorate. We have seen how Conservatives have abused their position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) pointed out, all too often they stuffed those people who had been defeated in elections in Wales on to Welsh quangos that ran Wales when they had no mandate to do so. So let us remember these things and let Conservative Members, who do not have a single Welsh Member, approach the subject with a little humility and recognise the result of the election.
  We want to make sure that the power which was previously concentrated in London and Cardiff is given to the Welsh people and that the Government are responsive to their needs through the elected assembly. The assembly is about bringing the pervasive network of Welsh quangos under democratic control for the first time. It is about ensuring that they work efficiently to serve the needs of Wales—the whole of Wales. The assembly will replace secrecy and the threat of corruption with openness and transparency. It is about creating a national assembly for Wales and for all its people, whatever their background, whatever their views, and wherever they live in Wales.
  The assembly is a new form of government, which will draw the best practice from both national and local government, but it will also innovate where there is a need for greater accountability and greater ownership by the people of Wales.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: If the Minister is so confident of the case for the proposal, why did his Government not provide any money for the alternative argument put by the no campaign, so that the result of the referendum was accepted as fair by everyone?
  Mr. Griffiths: Because we gave no money for the yes campaign, either. The truth of the matter is that each campaign had to provide its own resources.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Griffiths: In a moment. I want to deal with another point.
  Some interesting points were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). He dealt with a number of details on constitutional relationships, transfer orders, concordats, where the sympathies of civil servants would lie, and so on. The civil servants in the assembly will serve the elected members of the assembly. They will not be servants of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will have his own small office of civil servants to provide for his role at Westminster and in Cardiff. Nor will they be servants of other Ministers in Whitehall, any more than the Welsh Office civil servants owe their loyalty to another Department now.
  As for concordats, they will be voluntary matters. It will be for the Departments and the assembly to determine and agree them, but they will both have an

  889
  interest in good communications. The implementation of primary legislation will depend heavily on the secondary legislation and administrative action of the assembly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhynmey raised several issues in the context of the Institute of Welsh Affairs report and its concerns about the relationship between civil servants, the assembly and Whitehall, which, I have to confess, rest on a rather old-fashioned view of policy-making. In the past, the influence of Wales was confined to a secret world. We know that, in future, such influence will not be exercised solely by the Secretary of State at the Cabinet table, as used to be the case, when Welsh Office civil servants were confined to confidential meetings in Whitehall.
  That is not the Government's view of policy making. Unfortunately, there were leaks in the press today about the way in which we hope to open up government. It is the Government's view of policy making that, although concordats will provide for good communication and consultation, they are not the whole story. The assembly will not be bound by the Cabinet's collective responsibility. Frankly, if there are differences between Wales and London, they can be discussed openly.
  The civil servants of the assembly and the Scottish Parliament will owe their allegiance to their elected members just as civil servants in Government Departments owe their allegiance to the Government of the day. There is no difficulty in principle with that. Those officials cope today with disagreements and negotiations between Departments. In future, the difference will be that there will be no need for the fiction that such conflicts do not exist. Civil servants are used to serving different masters; after all, they did so before 1 May. Under the Bill, they will continue to be governed by the civil service Order in Council and accountable for maintaining traditional civil service standards and neutrality.
  Mr. Jenkin: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that a concordat for inward investment was never going to be necessary unless there was to be devolution of the nature proposed in the Bill? Will he also confirm that the WDA and Locate in Scotland are complaining bitterly about the new restrictions that that will mean for their activities? That concordat was specifically requested by the Prime Minister—Sir George Russell, the chairman of the Northern development corporation, must be extremely proud of one of his local Members. Does the Minister agree that it is likely that those restrictions will hamper the performance of the WDA because it will now have to work to explicit rules, outside the normal collective responsibility of Cabinet Government?
  Mr. Griffiths: The WDA and any other regional development agency in the United Kingdom will be bound exactly by the same rules that cover everyone else. There will be no essential difference; everything that Wales and the WDA have done so far has been within the rules which exist at British Government and European Union level.
  Mr. Jenkin: Why is it complaining?
  Mr. Griffiths: It is not complaining. Let me make that absolutely clear.
  Mr. Paterson: Why, then, does the Confederation of British Industry fear delay in decision making from the WDA?
  Mr. Griffiths: One or two members of the CBI have said that, but let me make it clear that many other business people in Wales take exactly the opposite view. It is all right for one Member from north Shropshire to call in aid one or two members of the CBI, but there are dozens of others who take an opposite view. [Interruption.] I am quite confident—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise from both sides of the Chamber. Only one Member should be addressing the House.
  Mr. Griffiths: Given the commitment in the Bill to consult business interests, I am quite confident that the Welsh Assembly will be able to help the WDA and other organisations committed to economic development in Wales to ensure that we are successful. Let there be no doubt about that.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Would he care to comment on the recent remarks made by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry? She told the House:
  "but it is essential that devolution should not undermine the UK's position in the wider world."—[Official Report, 3 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 311–12.]
  That was the reason she gave for the creation of the concordat, but it will inhibit the flexibility that the WDA has always enjoyed as part of the apparatus of government directly responsible to Cabinet.
  Mr. Griffiths: The WDA will not be inhibited in its role, and it will continue—in the catching phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—to bat for Britain. Let us be clear that there will be no restrictions on the way in which the WDA works after an assembly is created.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Hon. Members are slightly intrigued by those concordats; undoubtedly we will see them in due course. Will there be a concordat between the Welsh Assembly and the Treasury? If there is such a concordat, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that the Barnett formula will be written into it?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that my right hon. Friend raised that issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] It is all part of the same thing. We need to be quite clear about the Barnett formula. Concordats agreed between the assembly and any Department will be matters for them to decide, and there will be no compulsion about them. It will be a question of seeking agreement, to ensure that the machinery of government continues working smoothly.
  The explanatory and financial memorandum clearly explains that the Barnett formula will continue to be used. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did not even understand how the Barnett formula works, or that—

  891
  [Interruption.] I remind the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), who is shouting from a sedentary position—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) to be shouting from a sedentary position; he must be quiet. He has made his speech.
  Mr. Griffiths: I thought that perhaps he was one of the wild men of Witney. Nevertheless, I remind him that, although the Barnett formula has not been enshrined in any legislation or mentioned in the explanatory memorandum of any Bill, it has managed to survive both Conservative and Labour Administrations. The fact that we have gone out of our way to explain it in this Bill's explanatory memorandum rather indicates how strongly we feel that it will continue to play its part in determining the block grant for Wales.
  Mr. Ancram: Does the Minister realise that the need for the Barnett formula, or a formula of words ensuring the Welsh people that their needs will be met, arises only because of devolution? Currently, there is no need for such an assurance. Why does the Bill therefore provide that expenditure available to the Welsh Assembly will be entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State and no one else?
  Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a mountain out of what is not even a molehill. The Government are clearly committed to the Barnett formula. If he is saying that the Conservative party and a possible future Conservative Government are not committed to the Barnett formula, I invite him to tell the House. The Labour Government are committed to the Barnett formula, and, as far as I am concerned, the Conservative party has not only been committed to it but will continue to be so committed. If Conservative Members are not committed to it, perhaps they will tell us why in the Bill's Committee stage. Let us be clear about the matter.
  The hon. Member for Ynys Môn made some points on the executive and subject committees.
  Mr. Ancram: As the Minister knows, today a paper on the Barnett formula was placed in the Library. Will he tell the House the meaning of point 8(b), which states:
  "Adjustments may be made"
  to the Barnett formula when
  "action taken by the Scottish or Welsh administrations in a devolved area has knock-on costs for the UK Government or vice versa"?
  Mr. Griffiths: Quite simply—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not realise this—the paper includes all the ground rules on which the Barnett formula operates.
  Mr. Ancram: What does it mean?
  Mr. Griffiths: I will give you an example if you promise that, when I have answered, you will give your commitment to the Barnett formula—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the right hon. Gentleman will give his commitment to the Barnett formula. If, for example,
  892
  the level of council tax were to rise significantly in Wales, that would have a knock-on effect on council tax benefit, which is drawn from the social security budget. Therefore, that could be taken into account, because it is another spending Department. It is quite simple.
  Mr. Ancram indicated dissent.
  Mr. Griffiths: It might not be simple for the right hon. Gentleman, but it is quite simple. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have explained it to him, and that is all he needs—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must have good order in the House.
  Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Who is paying the bill? The Minister should answer.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Devizes will have an opportunity to explore these issues in Committee.
  Returning to the subject of the executive committee and the subject committees, it is not a traditional Cabinet model, but the Bill allows the assembly wide scope in its standing orders to delegate powers to the executive committee and to assembly secretaries. The Bill will allow account to be taken of issues arising from a more cabinet-style system of government.
  Structural funds, although not on the face of the Bill, are a matter for the transfer order. We intend that the transfer order will transfer the Secretary of State's functions in respect of structural funds to the assembly. That means that the assembly will be able to determine, in agreement with the European Commission, what should be the priorities for the structural funds in Wales and how they will be administered. Assembly staff will be able to be part of UKREP—the United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the European Union. They are members of the home civil service and will be able to be seconded to UKREP—that is one of the benefits of maintaining a unified civil service.
  On the question of the assembly and the exercise of the UK vote in the Council of Ministers, yes, it will be possible by agreement with the UK lead Minister on the subject. If there is a specific Welsh issue being debated in the Council of Ministers, the Welsh Assembly will be able to take part in the meeting in that way. That might cover matters such as minority languages. Executive members of the assembly will be able to take part, by agreement, in relevant negotiations on policy at all levels, up to and including the Council of Ministers. That is exactly the same as what is proposed for Scotland.
  I hope that we will be able to address issues relating to female representation, which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan).

  893
  Because of European law, that is not a straightforward matter, but at least three of the four significant parties in Wales are committed to increasing representation from the women of Wales, and we can only hope that Her Majesty's Opposition will take a similar view.
  In the Bill, we are delivering on our manifesto commitment, on pledges in the White Paper and the referendum mandate. It is now time to look to the future. I thought that I detected a slight note of conciliation in the speech of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in that his party was now willing to take part in a constructive way in the debate on how the assembly should work. I hope that the Bill will ensure that there is a new voice and a new future for Wales. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 375.

  Division No 105]

  [9.59pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Amess, David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gray, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Green, Damian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Greenway, John

  Bercow, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hammond, Philip

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayes, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Horam, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Butterfill, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cash, William

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Key, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward

  Collins, Tim

  Letwin, Oliver

  Colvin, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Loughton, Tim

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Luff, Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Evans, Nigel

  MacKay, Andrew

  Faber, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Fallon, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Maples, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fraser, Christopher

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Gale, Roger

  Moss, Malcolm

  Garnier, Edward

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gibb, Nick

  Norman, Archie

  Gill, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  894

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Pickles, Eric

  Townend, John

  Prior, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Randall, John

  Trend, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wardle, Charles

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  wells, Bowen

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Ruffley, David

  Whittingdale, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Woodward, Shaun

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. James Cran and

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Oliver Heald.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ainger, Nick

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cann, Jamie

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caplin, Ivor

  Allan, Richard

  Casale, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Caton, Martin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Chidgey, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Church, Ms Judith

  Austin, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Baker, Norman

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Banks, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clwyd, Ann

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cohen, Harry

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Coleman, Iain

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Berry, Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Best, Harold

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Betts, Clive

  Cotter, Brian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cox, Tom

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cranston, Ross

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Crausby, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Borrow, David

  Cryer, John (Hornhurch)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Breed, Colin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Browne, Desmond

  Dalyell, Tam

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Darvill, Keith

  Burden, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burstow, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Byers, Stephen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Dawson, Hilton

  895

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Hutton, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jamieson, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jenkins, Brian

  Doran, Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dowd, Jim

  Drew, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Etherington, Bill

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Fisher, Mark

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Keetch, Paul

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Kemp, Fraser

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Foulkes, George

  Kidney, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Galloway, George

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Gapes, Mike

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lepper, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Godman, Norman A

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gorrie, Donald

  Livsey, Richard

  Grant, Bernie

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lock, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Love, Andrew

  Grogan, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gunnell, John

  McCabe, Steve

  Hain, Peter

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Hanson, David

  McDonnell, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McIsaac, Shona

  Healey, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heppell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hill, Keith

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marek, Dr John

  Hoey, Kate

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Home Robertson, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Maxton, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meale, Alan

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moore, Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  896

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Mullin, Chris

  Snape, Peter

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Norris, Dan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, Bill

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stringer, Graham

  Pearson, Ian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pickthall, Colin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L

  Swinney, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pond, Chris

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thompson, William

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Timms, Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Radice, Giles

  Touhig, Don

  Rammell, Bill

  Trickett, Jon

  Raynsford Nick

  Truswell, Paul

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rendel, David

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tyler, Paul

  Vaz, Keith

  Rogers, Allan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wallace, James

  Rooney, Terry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Watts, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Webb, Steve

  Roy, Frank

  White, Brian

  Ruane, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Salter, Martin

  Wills, Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wise, Audrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wood, Mike

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wyatt, Derek

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. John McFall and

  Singh, Marsha

  Mr. David Clelland.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That the bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided Ayes 374, noes 143.

  [Division No. 106]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Coleman, Iain

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cooper, Yvette

  Allan, Richard

  Corbett, Robin

  Allen, Graham

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cox, Tom

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cranston, Ross

  Ashton, Joe

  Crausby, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Austin, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Baker, Norman

  Cummings, John

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Banks, Tony

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Barnes, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Dafis, Cynog

  Battle, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darvill, Keith

  Beard, Nigel

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Davidson, Ian

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dawson, Hilton

  Berry, Roger

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Best, Harold

  Dismore, Andrew

  Betts, Clive

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Doran, Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Dowd, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Drew, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Breed, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Edwards, Huw

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Efford, Clive

  Browne, Desmond

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burden, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Burgon, Colin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Burstow, Paul

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Byers, Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foulkes, George

  Casale, Roger

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caton, Martin

  Galloway, George

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gapes, Mike

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chidgey, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Church, Ms Judith

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Norman A

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Grant, Bernie

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  898

  Grocott, Bruce

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Grogan, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gunnell, John

  Lock, David

  Hain, Peter

  Love, Andrew

  Hall, Mike /Weaver Vale)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCabe, Steve

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Hanson, David

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Macdonald, Calum

  Healey, John

  McDonnell, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McLeish, Henry

  Heppell, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hesford, Stephen

  McNulty, Tony

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hill, Keith

  McWalter, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  McWilliam, John

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hoey, Kate

  Mallaber, Judy

  Home Robertson, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marek, Dr John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Maxton, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Meale, Alan

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hurst, Alan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hutton, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moore, Michael

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jamieson, David

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Norris, Dan

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Olner, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keetch, Paul

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pike, Peter L

  Kidney, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pond, Chris

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pope, Greg

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Pound, Stephen

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lepper, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Levitt, Tom

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Radice, Giles

  Linton, Martin

  Rammell, Bill

  Livingstone, Ken

  Raynsford, Nick

  Livsey, Richard

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  899

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Rendel, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Swinney, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rogers, Allan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roy, Frank

  Thompson, William

  Ruane, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Touhig, Don

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Salter, Martin

  Truswell, Paul

  Sanders, Adrian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tyler, Paul

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Vaz, Keith

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wallace, James

  Simpson Alan (Nottingham S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Singh, Marsha

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Webb, Steve

  White Brian

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Snape, Peter

  Wills, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Winnick, David

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wise, Audrey

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wood, Mike

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. John McFall.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Amess, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Collins, Tim

  Bercow, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan, Alan

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fallon, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Flight, Howard

  Butterfill, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Cash, William

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Fraser, Christopher

  Chope, Christopher

  Gale, Roger

  900

  Garnier, Edward

  Norman, Archie

  Gibb, Nick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Page, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Paice, James

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Paterson, Owen

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Pickles, Eric

  Gray, James

  Prior, David

  Green, Damian

  Randall, John

  Greenway, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hammond, Philip

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hayes, John

  Ruffley, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Horam, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spring, Richard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Key, Robert

  Swayne, Desmond

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lansley, Andrew

  Townend, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Tredinnick, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Trend, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Wardle, Charles

  Loughton, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  MacKay, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Woodward, Shaun

  Maples, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moss, Malcolm

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mr. James Cran.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
  I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the committal motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Wales.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move,
  That (1) Clause Nos. 1, 4, 22, 58, 80 and 118 be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
  (2) the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee; and
  (3) when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively,
  by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.

  901
  From the outset, it was the Government's proposition that consideration of the Bill would be split between a Committee of the whole House and Standing Committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear yesterday that we intended that the clauses which raised key points of principle would be debated by a Committee of the whole House. That remains our position. [Interruption.]
  We appreciate that a great number of technical matters were raised in yesterday's and today's debates. We believe that it is more appropriate that those matters are dealt with upstairs in Committee, where detailed scrutiny can be carried out. [Interruption.] Report and Third Reading will of course be taken on the Floor of the House.
  None the less, the Government recognise the concerns raised by the official Opposition, and the motion responds to that. I regret, however, that it was not possible to reach agreement through the usual channels on a reasonable timetable to consider the Bill in its entirety on the Floor of the House—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must have silence in the Chamber.
  Mr. Griffiths: The motion will allow key clauses to be debated in a Committee of the whole House. Those will be clause 1, on the assembly itself, which the Opposition specifically requested to be taken on the Floor of the House; clause 4, on the membership of and election to the assembly; clause 22, on the functions to be exercised by the assembly; clause 58, which deals with internal working procedures of the assembly; clause 80, on the assembly's financial arrangements; and clause 118, on the reform of the Welsh Development Agency.
  We believe that, in selecting those clauses, we have taken account of views expressed during debates on matters of import by Members on both sides of the House. We have heard much about such matters already. We hope that the proposed motion will allow the House full and proper opportunity to subject the Bill to detailed scrutiny on the Floor of the House, in Committee, and back on the Floor of the House.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: This motion is quite simply a disgrace. I am not surprised that the monkey rather than the organ grinder has moved it. I remind the House that, yesterday, the Secretary of State asked me whether I would
  "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".—[Official Report, 8 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 691.]
  Today, I put forward a proposal for seven days in Committee on the Floor of the House and two days on Report—compared with 17 days in total on the equivalent Bill in 1978. That suggestion has just been brushed aside. The right hon. Gentleman never meant those weasel words yesterday, and that is why he has got his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to move the motion.
  The Government of Wales Bill is the first constitutional Bill ever to be divided in such a way. Such division is a very serious breach of constitutional convention. It casts aside the main check that we have in this Parliament on
  902
  constitutional legislation. Where other legislatures have weighted votes or referendums with thresholds, in this House we have always taken such Bills in Committee on the Floor of the House so that they could be properly scrutinised.
  We are told that the only reason for moving the Bill Upstairs is administrative convenience. We should not use the procedures of the House for the administrative convenience of the Government, because the procedures of the House are here for the Members of the House.
  The motion is also in breach of what the Secretary of State for Wales said in the press conference when he launched the Bill. He said:
  "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".
  How will that occur if the Bill is considered in Committee Upstairs?
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way, because I do not have enough time. The motion is a contempt of Parliament, because it covers only six clauses out of 149 clauses and 14 schedules. Enormous areas of the Bill will not be considered on the Floor of the House, although they are of significant interest to all hon. Members.
  The nuts and bolts of how the proportional representation list system will work will not be considered on the Floor of the House, because clauses 5, 6 and 7 will not be considered on the Floor of the House. The right of the members of the assembly to set their salaries—a matter of considerable interest to Hon. Members—will not be considered on the Floor of the House.
  Provisions relating to cross-border regulations, which will affect England, will not be considered on the Floor of the House. The provision to allow the assembly to apply European law in a different way to that in which it is applied in the rest of the United Kingdom will not be considered on the Floor of the House. Most extraordinary of all, the schedules contain provisions that will affect England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they also will not be considered on the Floor of the House.
  The motion may appear innocuous, and our time for debate is short, but the impact on how the House undertakes constitutional reform is enormous. We well know the contempt that the Secretary of State of Wales and the Government have for the House, and the motion is another example.
  Mr. Paul Tyler rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I am not going to give way, because I have only 10 minutes.
  I seriously ask all hon. Members who value the procedures f the House as the means of checking the executive and safeguarding our constitution to realise that tonight they are being asked to breach a convention that has served the House and our constitution well. We shall oppose the motion. It is an act of constitutional vandalism, and I ask all those who cherish our rights in the House to join me in dividing the House on the motion.
  Question put, That the motion be made—
  The House divided: Ayes 359, Noes 139.

  Division No. 107]

  [10.36 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbett, Robin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Alexander, Douglas

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Allan, Richard

  Cox, Tom

  Allen, Graham

  Cranston, Ross

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Crausby, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cummings, John

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Austin, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Baker, Norman

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Dafis, Cynog

  Banks, Tony

  Darvill, Keith

  Barnes, Harry

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Barron, Kevin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Battle, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Best, Harold

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Betts, Clive

  Doran, Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dowd, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Drew, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Borrow, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Edwards, Huw

  Breed, Colin

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Browne, Desmond

  Etherington, Bill

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Burden, Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Burgon, Colin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Burstow, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Byers, Stephen

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foulkes, George

  Casale, Roger

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caton, Martin

  Galloway, George

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gapes, Mike

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chidgey, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Church, Ms Judith

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Norman A

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Grant, Bernie

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Grogan, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Gunnell, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hain, Peter

  904

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonnell, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hanson, David

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McLeish, Henry

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McNamara, Kevin

  Healey, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Heppell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hill, Keith

  Marek, Dr John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Martlew, Eric

  Home Robertson, John

  Maxton, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Meale, Alan

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Merron, Gillian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moore, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hutton, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jamieson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keetch, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pond, Chris

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pound, Stephen

  Khabra, Piara S

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lepper, David

  Radice, Giles

  Levitt, Tom

  Rammell, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Linton, Martin

  Rendel, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lock, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Love, Andrew

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McCabe, Steve

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Roy, Frank

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruane, Chris

  905

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Touhig, Don

  Sawford, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Truswell, Paul

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tyler, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wallace, James

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Webb, Steve

  Soley, Clive

  White, Brian

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wills, Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wise, Audrey

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wood, Mike

  Stunell, Andrew

  Woolas, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Swinney, John

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mr. John McFall.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Amess, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, Nigel

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Flight, Howard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Brady, Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  Gibb, Nick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Burns, Simon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butterfill, John

  Gray, James

  Cash, William

  Green, Damian

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Greenway, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Chope, Christopher

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Hammond, Philip

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Hayes, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Collins, Tim

  Horam, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Day, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  906

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ruffley, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Letwin, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Streeter, Gary

  Loughton, Tim

  Swayne, Desmond

  Luff, Peter

  Syms, Robert

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacKay, Andrew

  Thompson, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Townend, John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Trend, Michael

  Maples, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Viggers, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Waterson, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wells, Bowen

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Norman, Archie

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Pickles, Eric

  Woodward, Shaun

  Prior, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Randall, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Mr. James Cran.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Committee (clauses 1, 4, 22, 58, 80 and 118) tomorrow.

  Government of Wales Bill

    GOVERNMENT OF WALES BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(l)(a),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Government of Wales Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
    (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any expenditure incurred by any Minister of the Crown or government department under or by virtue of the Act, and

    (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment,

    (2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of—

    (a) any sums required by a Minister of the Crown for making loans or other payments to the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with the Act, and

    (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of that Fund under any other enactment, and

    (3) the payment of sums into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.
    It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (l)(a) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on Estimates, 1997–98 (Air) Vote A.

    ESTIMATES, 1997–98 (AIR) VOTE A
    That during the year ending on 31st March 1998 an additional number not exceeding 40 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and an additional number not exceeding 305 for Service in the Air Force Reserve Forces.
    Question agreed to.

    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1997–98
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions required to be put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates &c), as applied by the Order of 2 December.
    Resolved,
    That a supplementary sum, not exceeding? £634,729,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1998, as set out in HC 278 of Session 1997–98.

    ESTIMATES, 1998–99 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £97,354,245,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for civil and defence services for the year ending on 31st March 1999, as set out in HC 279, 280 and 281 of Session 1997–98.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Alistair Darling, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson and Mrs. Helen Liddell.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
    Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain funds out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 1998; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time, and to be printed [Bill 100].
    Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Order [2 December] and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
    Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It will be for the convenience of the House to take motions 7 and 8 on European Communities together.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, we will take them separately.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees).
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      EUROPEAN POLICE OFFICE (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)
      That the draft European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the European Police Office) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 19th November, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
      The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 60.

      Division No. 108]

      [10.53 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davidson, Ian

      Ainger, Nick

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Dawson, Hilton

      Allen, Graham

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dowd, Jim

      Austin, John

      Drew, David

      Banks, Tony

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Barnes, Harry

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Battle, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Edwards, Huw

      Beard, Nigel

      Efford, Clive

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ennis, Jeff

      Berry, Roger

      Etherington, Bill

      Best, Harold

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Betts, Clive

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Blizzard, Bob

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Boateng, Paul

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Borrow, David

      Foulkes, George

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gapes, Mike

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Browne, Desmond

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Burden, Richard

      Godman, Norman A

      Burgon, Colin

      Goggins, Paul

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Byers, Stephen

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Grogan, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gunnell, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hain, Peter

      Cann, Jamie

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Casale, Roger

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caton, Martin

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hanson, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clapham, Michael

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Healey, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hill, Keith

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Home Robertson, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hood, Jimmy

      Coleman, Iain

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corbett, Robin

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Crausby, David

      Hurst, Alan

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hutton, John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Illsley, Eric

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      909

      Jamieson, David

      Pike, Peter L

      Jenkins, Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pond, Chris

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Kidney, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rooker, Jeff

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Rooney, Terry

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lepper, David

      Roy, Frank

      Levitt, Tom

      Ruane, Chris

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Salter, Martin

      Linton, Martin

      Sanders, Adrian

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Sawford, Phil

      Lock, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Love, Andrew

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McCabe, Steve

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Singh, Marsha

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Skinner, Dennis

      Macdonald, Calum

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McLeish, Henry

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Soley, Clive

      McNulty, Tony

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McWalter, Tony

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McWilliam, John

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Marek, Dr John

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stringer, Graham

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Martlew, Eric

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Maxton, John

      Swinney, John

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Merron, Gillian

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Timms, Stephen

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Touhig, Don

      Morley, Elliot

      Trickett, Jon

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Truswell, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mullin, Chris

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Norris, Dan

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Olner, Bill

      Watts, David

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      White, Brian

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wills, Michael

      910

      Winnick, David

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wise, Audrey

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wood, Mike

      Mr. David Clelland and

      Woolas, Phil

      Mr. John McFall.

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Amess, David

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Baker, Norman

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bercow, John

      Livsey, Richard

      Brazier, Julian

      Moore, Michael

      Cash, William

      Öpik, Lembit

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Paterson, Owen

      Prior, David

      Chidgey, David

      Rendel, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Ruffley, David

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Evans, Nigel

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Stunell, Andrew

      Fallon, Michael

      Syms, Robert

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Thompson, William

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Fraser, Christopher

      Tyler, Paul

      Garnier, Edward

      Wallace, James

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Webb, Steve

      Gorrie, Donald

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Hayes, John

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Mr. Peter Luff and

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mr. James Gray.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

      EUROPEAN POLICE OFFICE (DEFINITION OF TREATIES)
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Police Office) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 19th November, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 31.

      Division No. 109]

      [11.5 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Ainger, Nick

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Berry, Roger

      Alexander, Douglas

      Best, Harold

      Allan, Richard

      Betts, Clive

      Allen, Graham

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Boateng, Paul

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Borrow, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Austin, John

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Baker, Norman

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Browne, Desmond

      Banks, Tony

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Barnes, Harry

      Burden, Richard

      Battle, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Beard, Nigel

      Byers, Stephen

      911

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Healey, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Casale, Roger

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Caton, Martin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cawsey, Ian

      Heppell, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Chidgey, David

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clapham, Michael

      Hill, Keith

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Home Robertson, John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hurst, Alan

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hutton, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cox, Tom

      Illsley, Eric

      Cranston, Ross

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Crausby, David

      Jamieson, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Davey. Edward (Kingston)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Keetch, Paul

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dowd, Jim

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Drew, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Khabra, Piara S

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kidney, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Efford, Clive

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Etherington, Bill

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Lepper, David

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Levitt, Tom

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Livsey, Richard

      Foulkes, George

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gapes, Mike

      Lock, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Love, Andrew

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCabe, Steve

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Godman, Norman A

      Macdonald, Calum

      Goggins, Paul

      McDonnell, John

      Gorrie, Donald

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Grogan, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Gunnell, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Hain, Peter

      McWilliam, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mandelson, Peter

      912

      Marek, Dr John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Martlew, Eric

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Moore, Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Motley, Elliot

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mudie, George

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mullin, Chris

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stunell, Andrew

      Norris, Dan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Swinney, John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Olner, Bill

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pike, Peter L

      Timms, Stephen

      Plaskitt, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pond, Chris

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pope, Greg

      Touhig, Don

      Pound, Stephen

      Trickett, Jon

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tyler, Paul

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wallace, James

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rendel, David

      Watts, David

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Webb, Steve

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Rooney, Terry

      Wills, Michael

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winnick, David

      Roy, Frank

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruane, Chris

      Wise, Audrey

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wood, Mike

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Woolas, Phil

      Satter, Martin

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sawford, Phil

      Mr. David Clelland and

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. John McFall.

      NOES

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bercow, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brazier, Julian

      Hayes, John

      Cash, William

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Nigel

      Lansley, Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Paterson, Owen

      Fallon, Michael

      Prior, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robathan, Andrew

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      913

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Steen, Anthony

      Syms, Robert

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, William

      Mr. Peter Luff and

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Mr. James Gray.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      OSPAR COMMISSION
      That the draft OSPAR Commission (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 19th November, be approved.—[Mrs. Jane Kennedy.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      CHILD SUPPORT
      That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mrs. Jane Kennedy.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      DRUGS AND MEDICINES
      That the Value Added Tax (Drugs, Medicines and Aids for the Handicapped) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 2744), dated 18th November 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.
      The House divided: Ayes 262. Noes 57.

      Division No. 110]

      [11.18 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Burden, Richard

      Ainger, Nick

      Burgon, Colin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Allen, Graham

      Byers, Stephen

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell Savours, Dale

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cann, Jamie

      Austin, John

      Casale, Roger

      Banks, Tony

      Caton, Martin

      Barnes, Harry

      Cawsey, Ian

      Battle, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Berry, Roger

      Best, Harold

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Boateng, Paul

      Clelland, David

      Borrow, David

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coleman, Iain

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Browne, Desmond

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cox, Tom

      914

      Cranston, Ross

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Crausby, David

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Kidney, David

      Darvill, Keith

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lepper, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Levitt, Tom

      Dismore, Andrew

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Linton, Martin

      Dowd, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Drew, David

      Lock, David

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Love, Andrew

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McCabe, Steve

      Edwards, Huw

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Efford, Clive

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ennis, Jeff

      McDonnell, John

      Etherington, Bill

      McFall, John

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Foulkes, George

      McNulty, Tony

      Fyfe, Maria

      McWalter, Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      McWilliam, John

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mandelson, Peter

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Marek, Dr John

      Godman, Norman A

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Maxton, John

      Grogan, John

      Meale, Alan

      Gunnell, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hain, Peter

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hanson, David

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Healey, John

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Heppell, John

      Mudie, George

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mullin, Chris

      Hill, Keith

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Home Robertson, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Olner, Bill

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Plaskitt, James

      Hurst, Alan

      Pond, Chris

      Hutton, John

      Pope, Greg

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pound, Stephen

      Illsley, Eric

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jamieson, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Purchase, Ken

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Rooker, Jeff

      915

      Rooney, Terry

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Roy, Frank

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Ruane, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Timms, Stephen

      Salter, Martin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Touhig, Don

      Sawford, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Truswell, Paul

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Singh, Marsha

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Watts, David

      Soley, Clive

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wills, Michael

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Winnick, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wood, Mike

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Woolas, Phil

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stringer, Graham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Ms Bridget Prentice and

      Swinney, John

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Chidgey, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baker, Norman

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Evans, Nigel

      Bercow, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Brazier, Julian

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      916

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gorrie, Donald

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hayes, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Swinney, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Syms, Robert

      Keetch, Paul

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Thompson, William

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tyler, Paul

      Lansley, Andrew

      Wallace, James

      Lidington, David

      Webb, Steve

      Livsey, Richard

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Moore, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Prior, David

      Mr. Peter Luff and

      Rendel, David

      Mr. James Gray.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      CRIMINAL LAW (NORTHERN IRELAND)
      That the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, dated 12th November 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mrs. Jane Kennedy.]
      Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    British Board of Film Classification
    11.27 pm
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I wish to present a petition for the reform of the British Board of Film Classification and the introduction of a system of classification for television programmes. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Will hon. Members leave the Chamber as quickly and quietly as possible?
    Mr. Brazier: The petition, which is signed by 27,000 people, states:
    To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The humble petition of residents of the United Kingdom sheweth—
    The announcement by Her Majesty's Government of an intended review of its policy towards film and television signifies the growing acceptance that degrading and violent images can indeed desensitise and trigger acts of violence by both children and adults.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will:

    1) Reform the British Board of Film Classification, which is currently funded by the film industry and ipso facto not independent.

    2) Establish, as part of such a reform a mechanism and office whereby specific film classifications might be routinely challenged by members of the public.

    3) Establish a system of independent classification for films and other programmes shown on terrestrial and British-based cable television…

    4) accept, on behalf of the British people, a responsibility to produce energetically, through European and international treaty, ways of enforcing publication of programme classification on satellite television companies…

    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    I thank the Movement for Christian Democracy, a non-party political group, for the work it did in gathering this petition of 27,000 names. I commend it to the House.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Motor Industry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Jane Kennedy.]
  11.30 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If something is worth having, it is worth waiting for—and I suppose that that includes Adjournment debates.
  It is true that the passage of time leads us to study with great interest the pronouncements of politicians. The previous Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when speaking at the opening of the 1996 Society of Motor Manufacturers and Trades British international motor show, said:
  "Over the last decade and a half the UK has once again become recognised as a major player in the global automotive industry. We now have the most diverse automotive industry in Europe."
  Noting that that included in the total of 22 car and 10 truck and van manufacturers located in the United Kingdom were seven of the world's largest vehicle companies, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "More automotive companies are choosing to locate in the UK than anywhere else in Europe."
  How revealing that is. It is not that they are British companies; it is not that we, who have a great engineering tradition, are creating a thriving and imaginative motor car industry—it is that more and more foreign companies are choosing to locate in the home of British manufacturing.
  Why should that matter? Some will say, "Look at the figures; look at the way we have kept up production. We are still managing to export cars in large numbers, so why should we be concerned? As long as jobs are being created within the industry, we should be satisfied and the ownership of the assets is of no concern." I am afraid that that is not the case. Only 10 years ago, this country still maintained a very live and real interest in its British motor car industry; now, virtually every major manufacturer in this country that is an exporter of any sort of car is owned by foreign interests.
  It does not matter whether we are talking about BMW, German-owned; Chrysler, American-owned; Fiat Auto, Italian-owned; Ford, American-owned; General Motors, American-owned; Nissan, Japanese-owned; Peugeot-Citroen, French-owned; Renault, French-owned; Toyota, Japanese-owned; or Volkswagen, German- owned—in each case the assets are controlled by a board of directors and, above all, by the interests of shareholders and profits in another country. That is tremendously important.
  I raise this subject tonight because of what is happening to one of the oldest and certainly the most prestigious of motor car manufacturers, Rolls-Royce. Its factory in my constituency gave the name of its product to luxury and quality, but Vickers, its owner, is happily offering it to any company anywhere in the world on the basis that it cannot continue to manufacture high-quality cars. It is important to examine exactly why that is so.
  Vickers took over Rolls-Royce when Rolls-Royce had made considerable profits. It is true that Vickers' timing was bad, in that it then had two rather bad years. Unfortunately, that meant that, when Sir Colin Chandler took over as managing director of Vickers, his desire to

  919
  get rid of the extraneous unit could not be fulfilled simply because the profits suddenly dipped. As I said, for the first two years, there were considerable profit problems.
  The reality is that the car has continued to sell. It has not had the investment that it should have had; nevertheless, although a great deal of money has been required for the development of new motors and new models, Rolls-Royce continued to be not only one of the most successful expensive cars but one of this country's successful exports. Indeed, the figures are very interesting.
  Let us consider the export figures for UK motor vehicle production between 1990 and 1997. In 1990, 72.4 per cent. of large cars were exported, rising to 76.6 per cent in 1991. The figure hovered between 70 and 78 per cent. until 1995, when it rose to 81.9 per cent. In 1996, 80.5 per cent. were exported and in January to September 1997 the figure was 78.6 per cent.
  While production of the small/medium-sized range remained fairly constant over that period, the figure for the medium/large and large vehicles has grown. A substantial share of our large car sector is exported, which is clearly to our benefit. Rolls and Jaguar in particular form the major part of that export market. They are vital not only to my constituents, because of the jobs they bring, but to the country's economy. That is why I want the Government to consider carefully what is happening.
  Indigenous UK producers account for a very tiny section of the industry's output. The largest UK producer is Carbodies, which makes taxi cabs. As we are already examining taxi legislation, it may be that even Carbodies will face considerable difficulties. One only has to see the names of other car producers—Lotus, TVR, Morgan and Caterham Cars—to realise what problems we will have if there are no longer any major British manufacturers.
  I am delighted that any foreign firms should come to this country and provide jobs, but if we doubted whether we had control over that kind of inward investment and whether we were able to ensure that those firms were able to remain not only the creators of solid employment but the providers of considerable amounts of cash for the economy as a whole, we have only to consider what has happened today.
  We are told today that there is a consolation—Britain has lost a car plant because the new Toyota small car is to be made in France, which means that the plant at Burnaston has missed out on thousands of new jobs, but the engines will possibly be built at the facility in Deeside in north Wales. Anyway, we are told, we should be reasonably content because we are all Europeans now, and the reason that the jobs are being exported is that the new small car is meant above all for the market in the south of Europe. That is the logic of moving a car factory and facility.
  The situation is more serious. If a country consistently loses its manufacturing base in a product as important as motor cars or lorries, it has to import large numbers of small parts and become a fitter together of other people's work. If the situation is allowed to become even worse, it becomes simply an importer of manufactured goods from another part of Europe or another part of the world. There is a suggestion that the growth of motor manufacturing in
  920
  Brazil and Latin America will result in Britain and other European countries increasingly importing motor cars from elsewhere.
  That is absurd. The Transport Research Laboratory alone gives us a high-powered telematics industry, producing high-quality new science and ideas for new motor vehicles. We have scientists and research engineers. We have not only imagination and verve, but intelligence, constantly committed to the creation of new ideas, yet we are prepared to step quietly aside and let Rolls-Royce look for German masters because it does not want to put more money into new vehicles and it cannot afford the research on emissions that will be necessary for the American markets, so someone else must be found to take over the last real British motor manufacturer.
  The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is not happy about the situation. It does not regard it as intelligent or responsible economics. Anyone examining where our industry is going cannot have any confidence for the future.
  I was told today that one of the engineering unions said that the problems were happening because we did not have a single currency. I dismiss that argument out of hand. It is rubbish, and it is important that we should say so. The situation has nothing to do with a single currency. It has far more to do with the attitude of British management, who, when faced with any circumstances in which they can sell the gold and run away somewhere else with their assets, are quite prepared to do so.
  Vickers claims not to be like that, but to be a highly responsible defence firm that has given a long commitment to the United Kingdom, pouring money into defence jobs. Well, yes and no. Vickers has also taken over large numbers of state assets and closed down some of the jobs in the defence industry because it did not want competition in certain areas, such as tanks. It has also taken large amounts of money for research and development from this country.
  When I said that before—you may find it difficult to believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am basically quite cruel—Vickers got very upset with me. I was told that what I had said was untrue, and that my views had been "noted with deep concern". Vickers claimed to be
  "deeply committed to the British manufacturing industry… Vickers has invested very significant sums of money to ensure the survival of the business. Since the low point of the last recession, we have invested heavily in both new products and much improved facilities".
  If that is so, why is Vickers holding on to its new cars until February and doing its best to move out of its existing models? Presumably it wants to hand over to the new buyers not only a new fleet of cars, but a new, sparkling product that will make the firm attractive and a good buy for a German manufacturer.
  Almost all the engineering facilities in my constituency have been handed over to foreign buyers in the past 10 years, some of whom walked away with large sweeteners.
  There was the American who bought all the railway freight with £240 million of taxpayers' money, and there was the British Rail workshop that now depends on repair work and will be wiped out totally if we import American locomotives. Now Rolls-Royce is saying that only with BMW or Mercedes-Benz is there any future for what remains one of the best motor cars in the world. That is irresponsible rubbish. It is nonsense.

  921
  The jobs belong in Crewe. They were first created by the high standards of workmanship, the commitment of the people on the shop floor and years of people working for lower wages than elsewhere in the engineering industry. The people working in the factory care about Rolls-Royce. They call it Royces. They care about engineering and the quality of their jobs. They are now less important to the firm that now owns them than a golf course tucked away somewhere that could be sold off to any passing itinerant buyer. That is the problem we are facing in Crewe.
  If the Government are serious about using research and development facilities, creating jobs and not losing them and using taxpayers' money to look for new outlets, the first thing that my hon. Friend the Minister should do tomorrow is ask the management of Vickers what they think they are doing. He should ask them what prospects there are for the factory, and he should tell them not only that it is absurd for them to talk in such terms, but that we need to know what they are proposing.
  The rumours are that BMW has already sewn up a deal, and that, irrespective of what is said in public, BMW engines are being used and BMW is the preferred company, irrespective of many other factors that should be taken into account.
  When my hon. Friend has done that, he should talk to his colleagues in other Departments. He should talk to Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry and find out what Rolls-Royce represents in terms of exports, and what would happen if that specialised unit were moved, closed down or put at risk. When he has figured that out, he should sit down with his colleagues and say that the Government have a responsibility to maintain not only jobs but the manufacturing base of a very high-quality product that will move into the next century with innovative technology, imagination and, above all, such quality that people will be proud to identify Rolls-Royce as a British name.
  In Crewe, we are proud of Rolls-Royce and those who work in it. We are proud of the men and women who have given their lives to it—although, from time to time, they have been treated with total contempt. Let me say to my hon. Friend the Minister tonight: "Do not tell me that you cannot subsidise Rolls-Royce—I have not asked for that. Do not say that the Government are not involved, because they are." Every time we lose a large manufacturer, we put all such units at risk. If my hon. Friend does not believe me, he has only to remember what happened in Derbyshire, and the effect of moving those jobs to France.
  It may be that we are all such good Europeans that we can stand quietly by while our economy is devastated, until it is devoted entirely to service industries. I do not see the future of my constituency as a series of garages providing fuel for other people's Rolls-Royces, and I expect the Government to take the same view.
  11.48 pm
  The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for initiating tonight's important Adjournment debate. I share her deep concern for the future of manufacturing, engineering and technology. The British manufacturing base has declined from 58 per cent. in the late 1970s to 22 per cent. of
  922
  the economy. My own city of Leeds has depended on engineering for an entire century. In recent decades, the decline in engineering has been precisely in those supported manufacturing industries.
  Although we are certainly watching what is happening, the Government strongly support the automotive industry, including the component sector. We want to see it grow and prosper.
  We want to build and consolidate the manufacturing base to help it compete successfully in Europe and the rest of world. Our automotive sector is the largest manufacturing industry in the world. In the UK, it generates 3.4 per cent. of gross domestic product, and employs 310,000 people directly and a further 440,000 throughout the supply chain in very many small and medium-sized British enterprises. There is strength in depth in the industry.
  There are diverse, large multinational companies in the UK, such as Vauxhall in Luton and Ellesmere Port, Ford in Dagenham and Halewood, the Rover Group in Longbridge, Nissan in Sunderland, Honda in Swindon, Toyota in Burnaston—which is still there—and Peugeot in Ryton. Between them they employ almost 100,000 British workers. We must take account of the fact that the industry is highly linked. Our share of car production in the European Union has risen from less than 9 per cent. to—in 1996—just over 12 per cent. British factories are exporting Nissans, Rovers and Jaguars to Japan, and, even now, Cadillac engines to Detroit.
  I simply make those points because the industry operates in a global market. Competitors are no longer those in the next town or even in the same country. The automotive world is global. To compete globally, the industry must be competitive globally, which means we have to face the challenges of the new world. That means that vehicle manufacturers have to find innovative ways of working—perhaps even with competitors—to secure the economies which can result from joint engineering and design and common componentry, to ensure that they are able to meet the challenges of the world market.
  As we said in the recent report "Benchmark for Britain", the UK automotive components industry has some world-class performers. It has made impressive strides in recent years. It is well placed in world terms. The Department of Trade and Industry is working closely with the UK components industry to help win new business and safeguard existing operations.
  We are supporting the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders industry forum initiative, which is an ambitious and practical programme to help industry improve its ability to compete and win in a global marketplace. The industry forum is a good example of Government and industry working together, with industry taking the lead to raise quality and demonstrate that the UK can bridge the performance gaps that are starting to emerge.
  I recently visited an automotive company with which the industry forum had been working to improve performance and productivity and reduce floor space to ensure that it is in a strong position to remain in the UK and remain supportive.

  923
  There are seven multinational car manufacturers with substantial production operations in Britain, and five truck manufacturers. Rover has invested in a £400 million plant in the west midlands. Jaguar is investing in another £400 million plant for the production of the new small saloon car. Vauxhall is investing £300 million in upgrading its Ellesmere Port facilities. Nissan is investing £200 million in the Sunderland plant. Although Toyota's announcement today is, of course, a disappointment, as we have spelt out, it has so far invested £1 billion, underpinning 3,000 jobs, backed up by 60 UK components manufacturers. So the story is not all bleak.
  I do not apologise for listing those projects. That level of investment is not only of direct benefit to car manufacturing but permeates much deeper into the British manufacturing industry, which has a beneficial impact on the automotive components supply base.
  My hon. Friend mentioned research and development. It is not true that the car industry in Britain consists only of manufacturing operations. In fact, the automotive sector in Britain came second only to pharmaceuticals in its share of civil research and development spend, and spending increased by 16 per cent. in real terms last year. Much of that is accounted for by substantial vehicle engineering operations. Nor should we overlook the highly skilled and dynamic independent engineering companies, such as Lotus, Ricardo and others.
  As for foreign ownership, we ought to stress that we have a vibrant and increasingly successful automotive industry. That has been brought about largely by British companies and a British work force.
  Ford and General Motors have both operated in Britain since the early part of the century, and that does not reflect a transient commitment to the UK. The additional investment that has continued to be brought to manufacturing operations is essential for the growth of industry and jobs here. We cannot be opposed to inward investment, because it underpins whole sectors of the industry.
  Decisions on ownership and investment have to depend on sound commercial judgments. Any change in the ownership of a UK car company that might give rise to a qualifying merger would fall to be investigated under the Fair Trading Act 1973. In such cases, it would be for the Director General of Fair Trading to consider the merger in the first instance before giving his advice to Ministers.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said that her policy will be to refer cases to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission primarily when there are competition concerns. Each case must be considered on its merits. The President of the Board of Trade may block a merger that is referred to the MMC only when the MMC finding is that it would act against the public interest.
  Alternatively, any change in ownership may fall to the European Commission for a decision under the EC merger regulations. As a member state with a vital interest in such a merger, the UK would be involved in the decision. As a member of the European Union, we would have the right to go to the European Commission, as we have done for other industries.
  924
  It is fair to say that Vickers has invested heavily in Rolls-Royce, and the company is not in difficulties. Inward investment in the UK automotive sector can have a positive effect, and the sale is not the end of the road for the 2,500 employed at Crewe. That is too pessimistic a prognosis at this stage, and the company could continue to stand for engineering excellence in Britain.
  We face challenges in the future. We have a successful vehicle manufacturing industry in the UK, but it is dependent on having a strong, competitive supply chain. Although all the studies suggest that Britain has some of the best suppliers, work must be done to ensure that the British supply chain is improved and strengthened. We will work with that sector, through the industry forum, to ensure that that happens. By providing the right kind of environment to help the industry consolidate and thrive, we will bring together capacity in one location and locate new investment. The quality of our engineering, backed by a strong supply chain, will underpin jobs in the automotive industries.
  We will go further. The environment must also be high on our list of priorities. The Government will work with the industry to introduce technologies that will bring further environmental benefits. Only last month, the Prime Minister announced a joint initiative between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the DTI to set up the cleaner vehicles task force. The president of the SMMT, Ian McAllister, will chair the panel—and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I will sit on it—which will address the future issues for the automotive industry, to ensure that it has a future based on the skills and excellence that have been developed here.
  We must try to ensure that quality of life, integrated transport strategies—my hon. Friend mentioned taxis—and the generation of wealth, which underpins jobs, can go hand in hand. Environmental pressures are becoming the major drivers of innovation and competitive advantage and we must be in a strong position to address those challenges.
  By addressing such matters as the need to develop cleaner, more efficient and smarter vehicles—and building the partnerships with industry to enable such development—we can ensure a future for a strong automotive sector in Britain, supplied and supported by a back-up chain that employs many thousands of highly skilled and trained British workers and engineers. We must also ensure that such workers continue to emerge from the educational system to provide a ready supply of skilled workers for what is still one of our strongest economic sectors.
  My hon. Friend may feel that the key question is that of ownership. I think that it is a question of strategic investment and ensuring that investment backs British jobs and engineering so that we can deliver the best from our traditions of skilled engineering and technology. Our track record is second to none in Europe. In the mid-1980s, less than 20 per cent of UK production was exported. Now, more than 50 per cent. is exported, much of it to the EU. Our trade is more locked in to the EU than it has been before, and that is not a disadvantage—it underpins the lock-in of jobs here.

  925
  The decisions of recent months—some of which have been disappointing—do not undermine the fact that there has been substantial investment in the automotive sector. We should welcome that, as it underpins the supply chain, which in turn underpins the quality of British jobs.
  We will watch the situation carefully, but the sale of particular companies is a commercial matter for those companies and their shareholders. The Government are
  926
  not a shareholder in the companies, and, if the sale proceeds, it will be considered by the appropriate regulatory authorities. That is the traditional system for checking these matters, and it will be a matter for the President of the Board of Trade—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twelve midnight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Travel Expenses
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the President of the Council if she will estimate the cost of travel incurred by hon. Members returning to Westminster for one day. [19226]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  It is not possible to provide a realistic estimate of the travel cost of one day's travel to and from Westminster.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Education and Conduct Report
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct intends to publish its sixth annual report. [20115]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct has today published its sixth annual report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Information Services
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the President of the Council what was the aggregate amount spent by her Department and its agencies during 1996–97 on(a) advertising, (b) public relations, (c) promotions, (d) public information campaigns, (e) press and information services and (f) market research and opinion polls. [19163]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  In 1996–97, a total of £49,919 was spent by my Department on press and information services.

SCOTLAND

  NHS White Paper
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish his White Paper on the future of the NHS in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [20239]

  Mr. Dewar
  Our White Paper on the future of the NHS in Scotland, "Designed to Care", is published today. Copies have been laid before the House. Copies are available in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.
  492
  Our objective is a modernised patient-centred health service designed to ensure that wherever patients make use of the services of the NHS they receive the highest quality care. We will create a seamless service which gives patients continuity of care from GP through hospital to rehabilitation. And we will harness new technologies to improve reliability and effectiveness of patient care.

  The White Paper sets out clearly the system which will replace the internal market in health care. The cost of the internal market has been fragmentation, bureaucracy and the beginning of a two-tier service. Our proposals will save £100 million over the lifetime of this Parliament, money which will be reinvested in patient care. "Designed to Care" honours our commitment to retain the central role for primary care whilst removing the disadvantages of GP fundholding. We will do this by giving strong organisational support to primary care through the creation of Primary Care Trusts, which will allow professionals to take the lead in combining locally to organise health services for the benefit of all patients in their area. We have retained distinct roles for those responsible for strategy and those responsible for service delivery to promote devolved decision-making.

  "Designed to Care" re-focuses NHS Trusts on improving services to patients and gives clinicians and those who use their services a bigger say in their management. We are committed to fewer NHS Trusts, and the White Paper sets out the criteria to guide this process to a speedy conclusion.

  "Designed to Care" sets out our vision for the future of the NHS in Scotland, with solutions suited to Scottish needs. It lays the foundation for the work of the Scottish Parliament in continuing to improve the health of the people of Scotland.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Mixed Oxide Fuel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions have taken place in the European Environment Council on the environmental implications of the transportation of mixed oxide fuel from the European Union to Japan; and if he will ensure that a full report is prepared on this subject during the period of the United Kingdom presidency. [18493]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are unaware of any such discussions. However, the fourth report of the Standing Working Group on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material of DG XVII has recently been submitted to the Commission and will be submitted to the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. We have no plans to issue any further report on this matter.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contingency plans are in place to deal with accidents involving
  493
  (a) aircraft and (b) ships whilst transporting mixed oxide fuel from the United Kingdom to (i) mainland Europe and (ii) Japan. [18476]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Transporters of radioactive material within the United Kingdom are required, by statutory safety regulation, to have contingency plans in place to respond to accidents. The UK transporters of mixed oxide fuel have such plans in place for air and sea modes.

  Rail Operators
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been awarded in bonuses for(a) meeting and (b) exceeding service standards to rail operators in the last 12 months. [19340]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director operates financial incentive regimes under franchise agreements which supplement the pressure of market forces where necessary; intercity train operating companies are not covered by such regimes. The regimes reward or penalise operators according to performance compared with historical benchmarks. Details of these appear in the Franchising Director's quarterly bulletins and in his Annual Report which are in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the district, county and unitary councils that have not been permitted to spend above their 1990–91 capping level for each of the years from 1990–91 to 1998–99. [19476]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Capping levels were only set for 21 authorities in 1990–91. Of these, the following have had provisional caps at or below the level of their 1990–91 cap in the years shown:

  Barnsley, 1992–93;

  Basildon, 1991–92 to 1998–99;

  Bristol, 1991–92 to 1995–96;

  Derbyshire, 1991–92, 1993–941, 1997–982.

  1The cap limit was lower in 1993–94 as a result of the adjustment for the transfer of Further Education out of the local authority sector.

  2The cap limit was lower in 1997–98 as a result of the transfer of functions to the new unitary authority of Derby City Council.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what have been the total community charge and council tax receipts in each year since 1991–92. [19929]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Community charge

  6,590

  7,300

  584

  278

  167

  103

  Council tax

  n/a

  n/a

  6,807

  7,549

  8,149

  8,717

  These figures are the amounts received in each financial year.

  494
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the level of spending by English local authorities in each year since 1991–92; and if he will indicate the annual percentage change in real terms. [19821]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is given below. There has been a number of changes in local authority responsibilities in the period covered. In particular;in April 1993 responsibility for further education was transferred to the Further Education Funding Council;
  from 1994–95 onwards, Care in the Community responsibilities were transferred to local authorities;
  in 1997–98 budgeted expenditure decreased by some £500 million as the result of the introduction of the nursery voucher scheme.

  For these reasons it is not always valid to make comparisons between years.

  Net revenue expenditure—English authorities

  Year

  Cash1(£ million)

  Percentage change(Real terms)2

  1991–92

  38,454

  3.8

  1992–93

  40,801

  1.8

  1993–94

  39,742

  -5.3

  1994–95

  41,677

  3.3

  1995–96

  43,087

  0.6

  1996–973

  45,828

  3.5

  1997–984

  46,486

  -1.2

  1Net revenue expenditure is net of all specific grants except, for years since 1995–96, police specific grants. Hence, for consistency, the figures for the years prior to 1995–96 have been adjusted to include the principal police specific grant.

  2The percentage change in expenditure in real terms has been calculated by using the GDP deflator.

  3Provisional Outturn.

  4Budget.

  Road Users (Disabled People)
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his Answer of 26 November 1997,Official Report, column 554, if he will ensure that orange badges for disabled motorbike riders are produced in a form which will fit into their normal vehicle tax disc holder. [19452]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Orange Badges should be displayed by motorcyclists only when they are in use in connection with parking. Any secure holder may be used to display the badge as long as the details on the front of the badge are visible.

  British Airways
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations(a) his Department and (b) authorities responsible for air traffic control and safety have received about problems in identifying in the air British Airways aircraft following the new decorations on their tailplanes. [10916]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None.

  Aviation Fuel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has undertaken into the environmental damage arising from burning of aviation fuel(a) at ground level and (b) in the upper atmosphere. [19742]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We continue to support research on the nature and effects of local and global emissions from aircraft engines. Many of these projects are major international collaborative efforts. The Department has a leading role in the International Civil Aviation Organisation's environmental committee, which includes an emissions group. It also supports participation by UK experts in major science and technology assessments, for example the European inventory of aircraft NOx emissions and the current assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of aviation and the environment.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the future role and responsibilities of the Rural Development Commission and if he will make a statement. [19749]

  Mr. Carbon
  We are considering this as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. We expect to reach conclusions in the New Year.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he last met the Chairman of the Rural Development Commission to discuss the future of the Rural Development Commission; [19782]

  (2) pursuant to his oral statement of 3 December 1997, Official Report, columns 357–59, when he received a request from the Chairman of the Rural Development Commission for a meeting to discuss the future of the Commission. [19819]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions had several meetings with Lord Shuttleworth at which the future of the Rural Development Commission was discussed, including on 21 July, 23 July, 16 September and 2 December 1997.

  Lord Shuttleworth's letter requesting a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the future of the Commission was dated 27 October 1997.

  Alexandra Palace and Park
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the correspondence between his Department and the London Borough of Haringey regarding Alexandra Palace and Park which is of a non-commercial nature. [19734]

  Ms Armstrong
  Identifying this information from the considerable volume of correspondence with Haringey over Alexandra Palace and Park would be time consuming and could not be undertaken except at disproportionate cost.
  496
  In November 1996 the Department gave the London Borough of Haringey directions, allowing an increase in their aggregate credit limit totalling £55 million, in connection with the Council's proposals for establishing the future of Alexandra Palace and Park. The directions are technical measures and do not convey additional financial support. I am arranging for a copy of the directions to be placed in the library.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what proposals his Department has received from(a) the London Borough of Haringey and (b) other interested parties for the closure of Alexandra Palace and Park; and if he will make a statement; [19731]

  (2) what financial guarantees his Department has given since 1990 to the London Borough of Haringey with regard to Alexandra Palace and Park. [19732]

  Ms Armstrong
  None.

  Local Self-government
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which clauses of the European Charter of local self-government the Government plan to sign up to. [19680]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on Thursday 31 July 1997,Official Report, column 546.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whether the boundaries of regional development agencies and regional chambers will be co-terminous. [19679]

  Mr. Caborn
  Regional chambers are being established under voluntary arrangements by local authorities and others. However, we wish to encourage a single chamber covering each region to provide a coherent voice for the region, in particular to offer views to the Regional Development Agency.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indian Sub-continent (Visa Applications)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many(a) visit, (b) settlement and (c) other visa applications made at the British High Commission in (i) Islamabad, (ii) Karachi, (iii) New Delhi, (iv) Mumbai, (v) Calcutta, (vi) Madras, (vii) Dhaka and (viii) Colombo were (1) made, (2) refused initially, (3) granted initially and (4) deferred in each year since 1992; [19013]

  (2) how many (a) visit, (b) settlement and (c) other visa applications made at the British high commissions in (i) Islamabad, (ii) Karachi, (iii) New Delhi, (iv) Mumbai, (v) Calcutta, (vi) Madras, (vii) Dhaka and (viii) Colombo were (1) made, (2) refused initially, (3) granted initially and (4) deferred in each month since January 1996 to the latest convenient date. [19023]
  497
  Mr. Fatchett
  In view of the amount of detail needed to answer this question, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visit visa applications from people aged over 65 years were(a) made, (b) granted initially, (c) refused initially and (d) deferred at the British High Commission (i) Islamabad and (ii) New Delhi in each year since 1992. [19100]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The details are as follows:

  Islamabad
  10,864 applications were made between 1992 and November 1997 as follows:

  1992: 504

  1993: 1,086

  1994: 1,091

  1995: 2,846

  1996: 3,645

  1997 (to November): 1,692

  A breakdown into issues, refusals and deferrals cannot be given without a physical search of all applications which would entail disproportionate cost to public funds.

  New Delhi
  New Delhi only maintains non-settlement records for 2 years after a visa is issued. The figures for 1996 and to the end of November 1997 are as follows: Deferred figures are not available.

  Year

  Applications made

  Granted

  Refused

  1996

  4,801

  2,647

  991

  1997

  4,084

  3,394

  439

  Ottawa Convention
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) of 24 November 1997, Official Report, columns 398–99, on the Ottawa Convention, when he plans to introduce the legislation necessary for the ratification of the Convention. [19323]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We attach great importance to the Ottawa Convention, signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on 3 December. We intend to ratify it as soon as possible. The timing of the legislation necessary for ratification will depend on our legislative programme. We intend to introduce the legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the maximum number of Greek military personnel allowed in Cyprus in accordance with its role as a guarantor power; how many Greek Army personnel are presently in Cyprus; how many military aircraft are in Cyprus; which authority monitors 498
  the level of Greek military presence in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [19512]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under the 1960 treaties, Greece is allowed to station a force of up to 950 military personnel in Cyprus. We estimate that there are about 2,000 Greek military personnel in Cyprus at present. There are no fixed-wing military aircraft permanently based in Cyprus. No international authority monitors the level of Greek military presence in Cyprus.

  European Commission Directorates
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals currently work for each directorate of the European Commission. [19559]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  According to July 1997 figures, the numbers of British nationals working at A Grade in each Directorate-General of the European Commission are as follows:

  I: 38

  IA: 58

  IB: 30

  II: 11

  III: 36

  IV: 17

  V: 27

  VI: 32

  VII: 20

  VIII: 44

  IX: 9

  X: 14

  XI: 26

  XII: 48

  XIII: 43

  XIV: 5

  XV: 23

  XVI: 21

  XVII: 22

  XIX: 8

  XX: 8

  XXI: 17

  XXII: 15

  XXIII: 10

  XXIV: 8.

  In addition, there are the following numbers of British nationals working at B, C and D Grade for the European Commission:

  B Grade: 237

  C Grade: 308

  D Grade: 7.

  These figures include staff paid from the Central and Research Budgets, and permanent and temporary staff.

  Western Sahara
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to contribute financial resources and personnel to
  499
  MINURSO, to ensure that the United Nations supervised referendum on self-determination for the people of Western Sahara is free and fair. [19708]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The UK contributes 6.568 per cent. in UN assessed contributions to the total costs of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). Accordingly, we will pay 6.568 per cent. of the estimated costs (£129 million) of the expansion of MINURSO as set out in the Secretary-General's report of 13 November and its addendum of 19 November 1997. We have no plans to contribute personnel.

  We fully support the expansion of MINURSO to facilitate the full implementation of the settlement plan.

  Brazil
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Brazilian Government concerning the eucalyptus plantation established by Aracruz Cellulose on land previously occupied by Tupirikim Guarani Indians. [19710]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  After meeting representatives of the Tupinikim and Guarani Indians, I wrote to the Brazilian Ambassador on 1 July about their claim to land occupied by Aracruz Cellulose. I also raised it with the Head of the National Foundation for Assistance to Indians (FUNAI), when I visited Brazil in September 1997. Our Embassy in Brasilia continues to monitor this particular case. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised other indigenous issues with the Brazilian Foreign Minister during their talks on 3 December.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the policy on voting rights of Gibraltarian citizens in European Parliament elections. [19272]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  To include Gibraltarian citizens in European Parliament elections would require an amendment to annexe II to the EC's 1976 Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament. This would require the unanimous agreement of all Member States, and ratification by each Member State in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. We keep policy under review in the light of those facts.

  Sudan
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards aiding the development of democratic government in the Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [19273]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have made clear both to the Government of Sudan and to the opposition National Democratic Alliance our wish to see progress towards a pluralist democratic system of government and respect for human rights in Sudan. Development of bilateral relations is dependent on progress in this and other fields.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the new Government in Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [19274]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There is no new Government in Sierra Leone. We condemned the military coup which took place there on 25 May 1997 and have consistently called for the restoration of the legitimate Government of President Kabbah. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) reached agreement with the military junta on 23 October in Conakry on a framework for the restoration of that Government. We have played a leading role within the international community in promoting discussion of the implementation of that agreement. With our encouragement, the United Nations is currently considering how best it can support ECOWAS activities in this regard.

  Raicha Jivan Parmar
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the British High Commission in Bombay is taking in respect of the case of Raicha Jivan Parmar of Maidston Road, Leicester, currently in India. [19949]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked the High Commission in Bombay to provide a detailed account of the position. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons will write to my hon. Friend within one week of receiving that account.

  Hamir, Lakhu and Devshi Vega
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the refusal of Bombay to issue a visa to Hamir, Lakhu and Devshi Vega (ref. R/973542), whose parents reside at Avonside Drive, Leicester. [19950]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked the High Commission in Bombay to provide a detailed account of the position. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons will write to my hon. Friend within one week of receiving that account.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's Biodiversity Strategy. [19672]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) is committed to providing continued assistance to help poor people in developing countries benefit from safeguarding biodiversity, both through the bilateral programme and the UK contribution to the Global Enviornment Facility (which is the financial mechanism for assisting developing countries implement the Convention on Biological Diversity). During negotiations with multilateral organisations, DFID will also pay particular attention to the impact of intellectual property rights on the interests of indigenous and local
  501
  communities who depend on local biodiversity for their livelihoods. To assist in the identification and provision of assistance in situations with opportunities for both alleviating poverty and safeguarding biodiversity, DFID is reviewing its bilateral biodiversity strategy in co-operation with interested parties, including NGOs.

  Environment and Development
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the Government will initiate a joint Environment and Development Council during its presidency of the European Union. [19785]

  Clare Short
  We do not propose to hold a joint Environment and Development Council but will contribute fully to the Environment Council's preparations for the Commission on Sustainable Development next year and continue to work closely with our environment colleagues on other issues of mutual interest.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures the Government will take to improve the effectiveness of EU overseas aid devoted to environment protection and enhancement schemes. [19784]

  Clare Short
  We will discuss any recommendations arising from the Commission's independent evaluation of the environmental performance of EC-funded programmes which is due to be completed in the new year, and continue to encourage the EC to integrate fully environmental considerations into the design of its projects. We will continue to participate in the Commission's Scientific Environmental Monitoring Group and the forestry and water expert groups, and have agreed to provide a project leader to prepare an EC/Member States strategy for biodiversity conservation. We have also seconded a forestry specialist to work for the Commission on the management of tropical forestry programmes.

  Sustainability
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals he has to promote the integration of sustainability through the Development Council. [19787]

  Clare Short
  We will continue to promote the integration of sustainability into the Community's aid programmes by seeking to ensure that due weight and consideration are given to it in the Community's legislation and policies. This will be one of our top priorities in the discussions on the future of Lomé during the UK Presidency.

  India (Port Development)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received regarding the proposed port development by P &O at Vadhavan in Dahanu Taluka, India. [19918]

  Clare Short
  The Department of Trade and Industry takes the lead on this question. The Department for International Development and other Government Departments have received a number of letters on this subject.

DEFENCE

  Cadet Forces
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sum his Department has spent on supporting combined cadet forces in schools in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97, broken down between (i) private schools and (ii) state schools. [19737]

  Mr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence has allocated the following sums to schools in support of the Combined Cadet Forces. The figures are in £million at current prices.

  1994–95: 6.6

  1995–96: 6.2

  1996–97: 5.8.

  I regret that my Department keeps no separate records detailing the overall costs attributable to individual schools, whatever their category. This information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  HMS Caroline
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Royal Navy has for the future use of HMS Caroline; and if he will assess the advantages of converting it to a museum. [19560]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Caroline will continue in use as the RN Reserve Training Centre (RTC) for the Belfast area for the foreseeable future. Consideration would be given to moving the Centre to a shore-based site if suitable accommodation could be identified, and if the requisite funding could be made available. The Ministry of Defence has no plans to assess the advantages of converting Caroline into a Museum.

  Resource-based Accounting
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the impact on his Department's budget of the introduction of resource-based accounting; and if he will make a statement. [19839]

  Dr. Reid
  When fully implemented, resource accounting will provide visibility of the full costs of all resources consumed. This will enable better informed management and decision taking throughout the department.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hospitality
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister what sums he has spent on hospitality for representatives of business at No. 10 Downing Street since 1 May. [19101]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 5 December,Official Report, columns 376–77.

  Ministerial Appointments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the mechanism by which the security services are able to make representations to him about his proposed ministerial appointments. [18919]
  503
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]No representations are made to me by the Security Services about proposed Ministerial appointments. Advice is available to me when relevant.

  BSE
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of an inquiry into BSE. [19909]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement shortly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Transsexuals
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the current arrangements for the(a) police, (b) courts and (c) prison service in respect of transsexuals; what plans he has to review these arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [19730]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  (a) The Association of Chief Police Officers suggested to forces in 1995 that a transsexual prisoner be asked to state a preference for the gender of the searching officer and to sign the custody record in confirmation. In the event of a lack of co-operation, the custody officer would treat the prisoner as being of the sex under which they were documented and living their lives. Best practice guidance for dealing with transsexuals is being drawn up and will be issued to forces.

  (b) The Court Service has no special arrangements in respect of transsexuals. Where appropriate, the police and prison service escort service address any special accommodation requirements of which they may be notified. There are no plans to review this arrangement.

  (c) The Prison Service decides where to locate and how best to care for transsexual prisoners on a case by case basis, taking account of such factors as their sex in law, their most obvious physical characteristics and their ability or otherwise to integrate with other prisoners. It is currently engaged in drawing up guidelines for issue to establishments on the care, management and treatment of prisoners with gender dysphoria.

  Under-age Drinking
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to combat under-age drinking. [19842]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on 16 July 1997,Official Report, column 173, and to the letter which I sent to all hon. Members on 17 July.

  Firearms
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the differences between the Draft Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 504
  Compensation Scheme laid before the House on 27 November 1997 and the ex gratia scheme under Schedule 1, Paragraph 10 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [19598]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government have given assurances that those who chose to surrender their small-calibre pistols voluntarily under the present ex-gratia scheme would not be disadvantaged compared to claimants under a future statutory scheme, and so the two schemes are identical as regards the range and values of firearms and ancillary equipment covered. There are some minor textual changes to the claims handling procedures described in the new draft scheme to reflect practice in the Firearms Compensation Section, and three items have been added to the list of ancillary equipment qualifying for compensation at Annex B of the scheme: speedloaders, speedloader pouches and spare parts held by registered dealers. While these items were not included explicitly under the previous published scheme, compensation has been paid for them on an exceptional basis.

  Czech and Slovak Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to answer the question of the hon. Member for Hertsmere of 20 November on asylum seekers from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. [19752]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I replied to the Question on 5 December 1997,Official Report, columns 361–62.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many random drugs tests in United Kingdom prisons proved positive; and how many prisoners found positive were subsequently charged with a criminal offence as a result of the test in the most recent year for which figures are available. [18991]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of random drug tests on prisoners which proved positive in England and Wales in 1996–97 was 13,797.

  The use of illicit drugs is not a criminal offence as such. Consequently, there is no central record kept of prisoners who may have been charged with a criminal offence following a drug test.

  A prisoner whose drug test is positive will generally be charged with a disciplinary offence under Prison Rules. Data held centrally do not separate charges concerning random mandatory drug tests from charges following positive results from the other aspects of the mandatory drug testing programme. In 1996–97, there were 21,588 mandatory drug tests in total which were positive. Disciplinary proceedings under Prison Rule 47 or Young Offender Institution Rule 50, "administering a controlled drug or failing to prevent its administration", followed in 16,757 cases.

  Handcuffs
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has issued in relation to the use of rigid handcuffs; and under what circumstances they permit police officers to use such handcuffs. [18990]
  505
  Mr. Michael
  A Home Office circular to chief police officers containing guidance about the use of handcuffs was withdrawn on 23 January 1997. This was replaced by guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) which reflects the provision in section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders. I am placing a copy of the ACPO guidance in the Library.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each of the last four years the metropolitan police has invited representatives of the media to be present at the scene of(a) a raid and (b) an arrest. [19048]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]The Commissioner informs me that the information requested on the number of occasions the Metropolitan Police has invited the media to be present at the scene of a raid or an arrest is not readily available and could be only obtained at disproportionate cost.

  He tells me that on occasions when Metropolitan Police operations are a matter of public interest the media may be invited to accompany the police on raids. On some of these occasions, arrests may take place. The Commissioner says that if the Metropolitan Police decides to invite the media to attend, their involvement is strictly controlled and carefully planned.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Wiltshire Constabulary were asked to collaborate with the Metropolitan Police in the raid on the Rectory at Donhead St. Andrews on 21 November. [19050]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]The Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary informs me that Wiltshire Constabulary were requested to participate in the inquiry on 13 October 1997. The request came from Sussex Police.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the media representatives who were invited by(a) the Wiltshire Constabulary and (b) the Metropolitan Police to be present at the police raid on the Rectory at Donhead St. Andrews on 21 November. [19049]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]I am told by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that no representatives of the media were invited to be present at the raid on the Rectory at Donhead St. Andrews on 21 November.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the total numbers of police officers required; and if he will make a statement. [19270]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]Ministers have no direct control over police numbers. Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for individual chief constables to determine the 506
  number of police officers in their force. We are already working with the police to reduce administrative burdens and to enable chief constables to put more officers on the streets.

  My right hon. Friend announced on 2 December that the spending power of the police in England and Wales next year can increase by £258 million, or 3.7 per cent. over 1997–98. The provisional settlement includes an additional £40 million of police grant in 1998–99. This sum is to ensure that police authorities have funds available which would allow them to increase spending on meeting the key objectives for the police in 1998–99. This could include the recruitment of additional police officers if the chief constable considers that this is the most beneficial way of delivering the objectives.

  Speed Camera Detectors
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to prohibit the sale of speed camera detectors; and if he will make a statement. [19467]

  Mr. Michael
  The use of such detector devices without a license is already an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and successful prosecutions have been taken out by the police against motorists who have used them. This Department has carried out tests which showed such devices to be largely unreliable and ineffective. We have no plans to create a new offence but we have asked the Association of Chief Police Officers Traffic Committee to keep us informed of any significant increase in the use of these devices and of any difficulties which forces experience. In addition, where an advertisement for such a device is brought to this Department's attention we lodge the papers with the Advertising Standards Authority so that the Authority can ensure that the advertising copy makes the legal position clear.

  Intrusive Surveillance
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the leaflet "The Police Act 1997, Complaints About the Use of Intrusive Surveillance"; and if he will make a statement. [19284]

  Mr. Michael
  The leaflet will provide guidance to members of the public and their representatives regarding the mechanism for complaints about intrusive surveillance operations authorized under Part III of the Police Act 1997. It will be published when the provisions of Part III are implemented next year.

TREASURY

  National Register
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to charge Departments for the value of their assets recorded on the National Register. [18194]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 2 December 1997]Departments, and parts of Departments, which are trading funds already incur a charge for their fixed assets; this forms part of the full cost of services provided which they are obliged to recover from income. As part of the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting, all
  507
  fixed assets on all departmental balance sheets will be subject to a capital charge. This will affect departmental budgets from 2001–02 when the system is fully implemented. I shall make a further statement on the Government's plans under resource accounting and budgeting in due course.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [19363]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]There are six parking spaces allocated to Ministers, and 46 available to Treasury staff and visitors in London. There are no other parking facilities outside London.

  Banks and Building Societies
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many bank and building society branches in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland were open in each year between 1979 and 1996; [19723]

  (2) if she will list the number of open banks and building society branches in (a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland, together with the number and percentage rate of closed branches, broken down into the smallest available geographical areas, in each year between 1989 and 1996; [19724]

  (3) how many bank and building society branches in Northern Ireland were open in each year between 1979 and 1996; [19721]

  (4) if he will list the number of open bank and building society branches in Northern Ireland, together with the number and percentage rate of closed branches, broken down into the smallest available areas, in each year between 1989 and 1996. [19722]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury does not have this information.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the amount of windfall gains from the demutualisation of building societies that will be spent in the current and forthcoming financial years; and how this differs from his estimate at the time of the July budget. [19702]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Estimates of spending out of windfall gains are set out in the box on "Windfall Payments" in Appendix A of the November 1997 Pre-Budget Report (Cm 3804, page 75).

  Insurance
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the inability of travel agents to value-shift between holiday and insurance products. [19661]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have received a number of such representations but all the evidence suggests that value shifting between holiday and insurance is widespread in the travel industry, as reflected by respective profit margins applied to these products.
  508
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the tax gain resulting from the higher insurance premium tax rate; and what are the reasons for the change in his previous estimate of £70 million. [19663]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest estimate of the overall tax gain from applying the higher rate of insurance premium tax to travel insurance is £60 million. This revision from the earlier estimate of £70 million took place prior to the introduction of this measure and reflected a reassessment of the share of the UK travel insurance market enjoyed by travel agents and tour operators.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has received showing that the lower rate of insurance premium tax is being used as a marketing promotion by those insurance retailers who compete with travel agents levied at the higher rate. [19665]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have received a number of examples of advertising literature on travel insurance, some of which mention the higher rate of insurance premium tax charged by travel agents.

  Veterinary Fees
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was received from value added tax levied on fees charged by veterinary surgeons in the last financial year for which figures are available; and how much was received from VAT on medicines sold by veterinary surgeries; and if he will reduce the level. [18932]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the year to 31 March 1997, £80 million net VAT was received from veterinary practices. Figures are not separately available for VAT on veterinary surgeons' fees and medicines sold by veterinary surgeries, as veterinary practices are not required to show these amounts separately on their VAT returns. The Government have no plans to reduce the level of VAT on such supplies. However, there is already a VAT zero rate on veterinary medicines where they are supplied to animal welfare charities that provide treatment to sick animals.

  VAT (Domiciliary Care)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding VAT on domiciliary care services. [19160]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The policy on the VAT treatment of domiciliary care services depends upon their nature. Where those services constitute medical care or welfare they are exempt from VAT. Domestic services such as laundry, cleaning, etc. do not qualify for VAT relief under any exemption. However, many of these are provided by people below the threshold for VAT and are tax free.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what calculations he has made of the total unfunded pension liabilities of the member states of the European Community; and what assessment he has made of the potential impact of that liability within EMU on interest rates to the year 2025. [18987]
  509
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury has made no independent calculations of other Member States' unfunded pension liabilities. Estimates and projections of pension expenditure by Member States are available in "Public pension expenditure prospects in the European Union; A survey of national projections" published by the European Commission in European Economy No. 3 1996. Pension liabilities are unlikely to have a major impact on interest rates, given the rigorous constraints imposed by the Stability Pact on public borrowing.

  Government Assets
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he has given on the arrangements for determining which assets listed in the register of Government assets are surplus to requirements. [18651]

  Mr. Darling
  It is for each individual Department, as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, to review its asset holdings as set out in the National Asset Register and decide whether they meet the Department's aims and objectives. If they do not, it is for Departments to decide the appropriate course of action in each case. The measures I announced on 24 November will give Departments the right incentives to do this.

  Statistical Surveys
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) the Family Expenditure Survey, (b) the Family Resources Survey, (c) the British Household Panel Survey, (d) the New Earnings Survey, (e) the General Household Survey and (f) the Social Attitudes Survey include samples from the area north and west of a line from Fort William to Inverness; if these surveys can be disaggregated to a Scottish level; and if he will increase the sample size of these surveys so that accurate statistics be produced for Scotland. [19154]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. John Swinney, dated 9 December 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to your recent question on the sampling arrangements for various surveys and the disaggregation of survey analyses to a Scottish level.
  As regards the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) and the General Household Survey (GHS), samples include the mainland part of Scotland north of the Caledonian Canal (i.e. line from Fort William to Inverness) but do not include the islands.
  The samples are designed to be representative of Scotland, minus the islands, and some analyses from these surveys are produced for Scotland. However, the sample sizes are not large enough to produce reliably all the analyses available for Great Britain.
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) is a 1% sample of employees in Great Britain who are members of pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) income tax schemes. The sample includes employees north of the Caledonian Canal. Results from the NES can be disaggregated to unitary authority level in Scotland.
  The Family Resources Survey (FRS) is sponsored by the Department of Social Security. It does not include samples from the area north of the Caledonian Canal due to the disproportionate fieldwork costs in this area. Some analyses are (can be) produced for the population of Scotland south of the Caledonian Canal but
  510
  the sample sizes are not large enough for all the analyses that are available for Great Britain. The information on this survey was provided by a statistician from the Government Statistical Service within the Department of Social Security.
  ONS co-ordinates the user requirements for a number of nation-wide surveys—including the FES, GHS and NES—in consultation with other government departments including the Scottish Office. Departmental requests for increases in the sample sizes of these surveys in particular areas, and their source of funding, are considered along with all other requests for information from the surveys. There are no plans to increase the sample size of the FRS in Scotland.
  Information regarding the British Household Panel Survey can be obtained from Nick Buck (01206 873 066) at the ESRC Research Centre on Micro-Social Change at the University of Essex.
  Information regarding the Social Attitudes Survey can be obtained from Alison Park (0171 250 1866) at Social and Community Planning Research.

  Devolution
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements will be made for determining changes to the budgets of the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales under devolution; and if he will make a statement. [20062]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government set out their position on the funding of the budgets for the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales in the White Papers published in July (Cm 3658 and Cm 3718). The key to these arrangements is block budgets which the devolved Administrations, like the Secretaries of State now, will be free to deploy between the functions under their control in response to local priorities. Changes in these block budgets will be linked to changes in equivalent English spending plans by the Barnett formula which gives Scotland and Wales a population-based share of planned changes in comparable spending in England.

  In order to help inform debate about these arrangements during the passage of the Scotland and Wales Bills, the Government published yesterday a statement of the principles which govern the existing block/formula arrangements and which will continue to do so under devolution. A copy of the statement is appended. Copies were placed yesterday in the Libraries of both Houses and referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales when he opened the Second Reading debate on the Government of Wales Bill.

  Although the block and formula arrangements have operated for nearly 20 years, this is the first time that these principles have been spelt out in public.

  Devolution

    PRINCIPLES TO GOVERN DETERMINATION OF THE BLOCK BUDGETS FOR THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT AND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
    1. The Government set out its position on the Block and formula arrangements in its White Papers on Scottish and Welsh devolution published in July (Cm 3658 and Cm 3718 respectively). The Scottish White Paper, Scotland's Parliament, said:
    "In practice these arrangements, based on the Block and formula, have produced fair settlements for Scotland in annual public expenditure rounds and have allowed the Secretary of State for Scotland to determine his spending decisions in accordance with Scottish needs and priorities. They have largely removed the need for annual negotiation between the Scottish Office and the Treasury. The Government have therefore concluded that the financial

    511
    framework for the Scottish Parliament should be based on these existing arrangements with, in future, the Scottish Parliament determining Scottish spending priorities."
    The Wales White Paper, A Voice for Wales, said:
    "The Government proposes that the financial arrangements for the Assembly will largely replicate the existing system.
    Annual changes to the Welsh Block will be calculated by the population-based formula used at the moment. These arrangements based on the Block and formula have worked in practice, producing fair settlements for Wales in annual public expenditure rounds."
    2. The Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales will therefore have block budgets, which they will be free to allocate in response to local priorities among the functions under their control and for which they will be accountable to local people. This note outlines the principles set out in the White Papers and describes how they will govern changes made to these block budgets under devolution.
    Setting Scotland's and Wales' shares of UK public expenditure: the "Barnett" formula
    Existing position
    3. All UK tax revenues are pooled. Decisions about the allocation of UK public expenditure are made in the light of the Government's judgement of relative priorities and relative needs. Changes to the shares of public expenditure available to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales are determined by a formula linked to changes in provision for equivalent spending programmes in England.
    4. This formula, which has operated for almost 20 years, is known as the "Barnett" formula. It provides that, in settling new plans for public expenditure, Scotland and Wales should receive a share of the planned cash changes in provision for equivalent public services in England which is proportionate to their population. In other words, Scotland's and Wales' shares of changes in relevant planned spending in England are the same proportions as their populations represent of England's population. The formula applies only to changes in spending plans, not to the underlying baselines which remain unaffected. The formula also applies only to changes in the block budgets: expenditure in Scotland and Wales, and expenditure on nationalised industries in Scotland, is outside the block budgets at present and
    After devolution
    5. These arrangements will continue under devolution, with only minor adjustments. Changes to the block budgets for which the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales will become responsible will continue to be determined by a formula linked to changes in provision for the equivalent spending programmes in England. The formula will continue to be based on relative populations. The spending for which the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales will assume responsibility is set out in the annexes to this note.
    6. The Government intends that these population shares will be re-calculated annually on the basis of the latest population estimates for England, Scotland and Wales published each year by the Office of National Statistics. The population ratios will next be updated for the purpose of determining changes in the Scottish and Welsh block budgets for 1999–2000.
    7. The Government intends that this population-based formula will apply to changes in almost all the expenditure under the control of the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales. It will not apply to changes in agriculture programmes 100 per cent. funded by the EU. The Government will also want to consider whether this approach or another formula is appropriate in relation to provision for Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit which will both come within the Scottish Block for the first time after devolution; Housing Benefit is already within the Welsh Block, but, as in Scotland, Council Tax Benefit will come within the Block for the first time.
    Adjustments to the Scottish and Welsh block budgets not determined by the Barnett formula
    8. There are a number of circumstances in which the block budgets under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland and Wales are open to adjustment other than on the basis of the Barnett formula. These exceptions will continue to apply under devolution. Adjustments may be made where:

    (a) the UK Government decides to make a uniform general adjustment to public expenditure programmes;

    (b) action taken by the Scottish or Welsh administrations in a devolved area has knock-on costs for the UK Government or vice versa. The block budgets may be adjusted downwards to compensate for costs incurred by the UK Government as a result of the action of the devolved administrations, or upwards to compensate the devolved administrations for costs which they incur as a result of actions by the UK Government and are not allowed for through the operation of the Barnett formula. The block budgets will not however be adjusted upwards by reason of additional costs incurred as a result of actions by the UK Government which the UK Government is expecting English departments with parallel responsibilities to absorb within existing spending plans;

    (c) the devolved administrations receive capital receipts as a result of a privatisation or major change in the role of the public sectors in Scotland or Wales. In these circumstances, the block budgets may be adjusted downwards in the year in which the receipts occur to reflect the continuing interest in these receipts of UK taxpayers as a whole who financed the underlying capital assets in the past. Proceeds from the sales of other capital assets under the control of the Scottish Parliament or National Assembly for Wales will be available to be re-cycled within Scotland or Wales;

    (d) the devolved administrations receive significant trading surpluses from the commercial exploitation of publicly funded assets: the Uk Government may take these surpluses into account in settling block budgets;

    (e) local authority self-financed expenditure grows more rapidly than equivalent expenditure in England over a period and in such a way as to threaten targets set for public expenditure as part of the management of the UK economy. In such circumstances it will be open to the UK Government to take the excess into account in considering the level of the block budgets.

    9. These principles concern the determination of changes to the block budgets under the control of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, not the level of Westminster grant to support these budgets. The latter may also be affected by changes in the level of self-financed items of expenditure—local authority capital expenditure funded by borrowing, for example—which currently count towards the block Budgets.
    In-year changes to the block budgets for Scotland and Wales
    10. The arrangements outlined above apply to changes in the plans for expenditure in future years in Scotland and Wales. These paragraphs deal with changes in-year to the budgets arrived at under the arrangements outlined above and in particular with access to the UK Reserve for the devolved Scottish and Welsh administrations.
    11. The general presumption, as at present, is that the Scottish and Welsh administrations will contain in-year pressures on their budgets by re-allocating priorities within their Blocks, not through access to the UK Reserve. Access to the Reserve may however be considered at the discretion of the UK Government in exceptional circumstances and specifically where:

    (a) the Government is making available additional provision in-year for equivalent services in England in order to cope with exceptional circumstances affecting the UK as a whole unforeseen at the time spending plans for the year concerned were settled; and

    513

    (b) Scotland or Wales face exceptional and unforeseen domestic costs—arising, for example, from a natural disaster—which cannot be reasonably absorbed within the planned block budgets without major dislocation to existing services.

    Revising these principles
    12. As noted above, the formula will be updated annually to take account of population changes and from time to time to take account of other technical changes. Any more substantial revision would need to be preceded by an in-depth study of relative spending requirements and would be the subject of full consultation between the devolved administrations and the UK Government.
    Spending programmes forming part of the Scottish Block

    Domestic agriculture, fisheries and food (after devolution)

    Forestry (after devolution)

    Industry, enterprise and training

    Roads and transport

    Housing

    Other environmental services

    Law, order and protective services

    Education

    Arts and libraries

    Health

    Social Work Services

    Other public services

    ESF

    ERDF

    Nationalised Industries (after devolution)

    Council Tax Benefit (after devolution)

    Local authority expenditure

    Spending programmes forming part of the Welsh Block

    Domestic Agriculture (after devolution)

    Forestry (after devolution)

    Health and Personal Social Services

    Transport

    Industry, Trade and Employment

    Training (excluding ESF)

    Education

    Housing

    Other Environmental Services

    Arts and Libraries

    Local Government

    Central Administration

    Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales

    European Regional Development Fund

    Council Tax Benefit (after devolution).

  ECOFIN
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union held on 1 December. [19569]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I represented the UK at the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 1 December. The Financial Secretary accompanied me.

  The Council agreed a package of measures for tackling harmful tax competition in the EU. This comprises a Code of Conduct on Business Taxation, and agreement that the
  514
  Commission should come forward with proposals on the taxation of savings by non-residents, and on interest and royalty payments between companies in different Member States.

  The Council continued its discussion of economic co-ordination in Stage 3 of EMU, in the response to the remit from the Amsterdam European Council in June this year. No agreement was reached on what ECOFIN' s report to the European Council should say about proposals for informal discussions of issues relating to Economic and Monetary Union. The European Council will consider this at Luxembourg on 12 and 13 December.

  Agreement was reached on a common position on the FISCALIS programme (which facilitates administrative co-operation between the indirect tax authorities).

  The Council noted the important economic and fiscal issues surrounding the development of electronic commerce.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Security of State for Culture, Media and Sport what job opportunities the tourism industry can offer as part of the New Deal programme. [17996]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on 8 December 1997,Official Report, columns 465–66.

  Sport and Schools
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many sportsmark award have been awarded in the past 12 months; [19478]

  (2) how many gold star awards have been awarded since April 1997; [19479]

  (3) if he will list those schools which have received sportsmark awards in the past 12 months, indicating the date of award. [19481]

  Mr. Banks
  The first round of Sportsmark and Sportsmark Gold awards were made in June this year. Three hundred and eighty-two schools achieved a Sportsmark award and a further 30 achieved a Sportsmark Gold. A full list of successful schools has today been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what actions he is taking arising from the audit of the in-service needs of teachers and schools undertaken by the National Coaching Foundation; [19483]

  (2) what plans the National Coaching Foundation has to organise further training weeks for teachers and trainees, indicating the sports involved and the number of teachers participating. [19486]

  Mr. Banks
  The National Coaching Foundation (NCF) delivers the coaching for teachers programme on behalf of the English Sports Council (ESC). This is a four year programme. The second year of the programme will be run in spring-summer 1998.
  515
  There will be coaching for teachers weeks in every Sports Council region. Sports included in the programme are cricket, hockey, swimming, athletics, football, netball, rugby and tennis. Following the evaluation of the needs of teachers and schools conducted by the NCF during the pilot scheme, two new sports, badminton and volleyball, are to be introduced in 1998, as well as sports for people with disabilities including boccia.

  About, 8,000 teachers took part last year and a similar number are expected to attend in 1998.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many hours of sporting opportunity per week are required to achieve a sportsmark. [19480]

  Mr. Banks
  In order to achieve a Sportsmark award schools should provide a minimum of two hours a week of timetable PE lessons for every pupil and a minimum of four hours a week of organised sport outside timetabled lessons for all interested students.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what has been the take-up of moneys from the Challenge Fund to assist school or club links; [19492]

  (2) what steps he is taking to promote links between sporting clubs and schools. [19502]

  Mr. Banks
  One of the criteria for the Sportsmark award is for schools to develop links with a number of local sports clubs as a way of providing students with further opportunities outside school hours.

  A £1 million Challenge Fund was made available in October 1996 to promote links between local schools and clubs or governing bodies of sport. Guidance was sent to all secondary schools and over 400 schools successfully applied and received financial support for local initiatives that established or strengthened the links between local schools and clubs.

  The take-up of moneys in the first year of the scheme was around half a million pounds. A similar amount is budgeted for the 1997–98 academic year.

  Sport (Participation)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for further regional conferences to generate interest in sports participation. [19489]

  Mr. Banks
  We are planning to hold a series of regional conferences in the new year.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how he is implementing the OFSTED survey's findings on the need for improved co-ordination of information to young people to help them towards independent adult sport participation. [19488]

  Mr. Banks
  The English Sports Council are currently working on proposals for a Community Sports Co-ordinators Initiative. The Co-ordinator would be based in a secondary school with the task of liaising and working closely with all the agencies and providers beyond the schools to ensure the best possible provision of physical education and sport for pupils at school and when they leave.
  516
  In addition, the Top Club initiative, developed by the Youth Sport Trust, the English Sports Council and the governing bodies of sport is designed to help clubs build a better future in sport for children of all ages through the governing bodies of sport. This initiative is currently being piloted.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Child Care
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of funding she will be allocating for child care centres in 1998–99; how many child care centres will be proposed for Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [18224]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]We will announce shortly the level of funding in 1998–99 for a planned expansion of high-quality pre-school education in Northern Ireland. The number of centres to be funded will be determined at local level by Education and Library Boards in consultation with local pre-school Education Advisory Groups and may include settings in the private, voluntary and statutory sectors.

  Additional funding for out-of-school activities will begin in April 1999, but during 1998–99 details of the arrangements will be made known and applications sought from providers.

  Fair Employment Legislation
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to implement the recommendations contained in the SACHR Review on Fair Employment legislation. [18591]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Government's consideration of the recommendations contained in the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report on employment equality is well advanced. The Secretary of State has already indicated certain recommendations on which the Government propose to take action—clarification of the law on direct recruitment of the long-term unemployed and firmer powers against persistent discriminators. The Government will give a response to the full range of SACHR's proposals in a paper to be published early in the New Year. Decisions on foot of SACHR's recommendations will be implemented as soon as possible.

WALES

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the GDP per capita of(a) South West Wales and (b) North Wales as a percentage of the (i) United Kingdom and (ii) European Union averages. [19110]
  517
  Mr. Hain
  The latest available information is shown in the following table.

  Gross Domestic Product per head, 1994

  PPS1 units (thousands)

  Percentage of United Kingdom average

  Percentage of European Union average

  Dyfed (South West Wales)

  11.9

  72

  71

  Gwynedd and Clwyd (North Wales)

  13.8

  84

  83

  Source Eurostat.

  1Figures are given in PPS (purchasing power standard) units to cancel out differences in price levels between countries.

  Breast Implants
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision there is within the National Health Service in Wales for women who suffer from ruptured silicone breast implants, to have them removed. [19287]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The removal of a ruptured silicone breast implant is a clinical matter for individual clinicians to address with their patients.

  Agri-environment Scheme
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the(a) name of, (b) employer of and (c) organisation being represented by each of the members of the Wales Agri-environment Steering Group. [19670]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  There is no Steering Group for the new agri-environment scheme; my right hon. Friend will decide the form the scheme is to take.

  The members of the Working Group which is advising us on the technical detail of the management prescriptions for each feature have been chosen for their personal expertise; they do not represent any organisation. They are as follows:

  Name

  Employer

  Mr. D. Archer

  Snowdonia National Park

  Mr. J. D. Cowie

  Welsh Office

  Mr. H. Davies

  The Forestry Authority

  Mr. C. Gillmore

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Mr. G. E. Jones

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency

  Ms C. Keenleyside

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Mr. Bob Merriman

  Environment Agency

  Ms R. Nowell-Phillips

  Farmers Union Wales

  Mr. B. Pawson

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Dr. S. Rees

  Cadw

  Mr. J. Salmon

  Country Landowners Association (Wales)

  Mr. M. Thomas

  National Farmers Union (Wales)

  Mr. N. Thomas

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Mr. J. Young

  Welsh Office

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the planned budget of the All Wales Agri-environment Scheme in each of the next three years. [19671]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The allocation of funds for the new scheme is yet to be decided.

  Less Favoured Areas
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of Objective 5B funding in the less-favoured areas of Wales in(a) 1993, (b) 1994, (c) 1995 and (d) 1996. [19919]

  Mr. Hain
  There is not direct relationship between less favoured area status and objective 5B funding, and records are not kept in the form requested.

  Local Authority Spending
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the level of spending by local authorities in each year since 1991–92; and if he will indicate the annual percentage change in real terms. [19824]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Local authority expenditure in Wales1

  Net revenue expenditure (£ million) (Cash prices)

  Annual percentage change in real terms(Constant 1997–98 prices)

  1991–92

  2,411.2

  5.0

  1992–93

  2,577.1

  2.6

  1993–94

  2,554.8

  -3.7

  1994–95

  2,684.0

  3.5

  1995–96

  2,862.9

  3.8

  1996–972

  2,969.6

  0.9

  1997–983

  3,005.0

  —1.5

  1Excluding expenditure funded by specific grants. For consistency, the figures shown for the years prior to 1995–96 have been adjusted to include police specific grants. Includes additional resources for community care for 1993–94 onwards. The annual changes in 1992–93 and 1993–94 were effected by the transfer of higher and further education colleges from the local authority sector on 1 April 1992 and 1 April 1993.

  2Provisional outturn.

  3Budget.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will ensure during the United Kingdom presidency that implementation of United Nations Standard Rules for the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities is subject to annual review; [19676]

  (2) what arrangements exist to monitor progress towards implementing the UN Standard Rules for the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. [19681]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]Progress towards implementing the UN Standard Rules for the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities is monitored by the UN Special Rapporteur on Disability, Bendt Lindqvist, whose work the Government support.
  519
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who will be involved in the review of the threshold exempting employers with fewer than 20 employees from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [19678]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The review of the exemption provision includes a consultation exercise to gather views and evidence from a wide range of disability organisations, particularly those representing the interests of disabled people in employment or seeking employment, and employer organisations, especially those representing the interests of small firms, as well as individual disabled people and employers. The review will include meetings with interested parties.

  The Government will consider the responses to the consultation carefully before deciding whether the threshold should be lowered to extend the Act's employment rights to more disabled employees and job applicants.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the time scale of the review of the 20 employee threshold in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [19677]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Section 7 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires that a review of the effects of the small employer exemption threshold must be completed within nine months. I announced such a review on 3 December 1997 and expect that it will be completed in the late Spring of 1998. Any change to the threshold has to be made within one year of the review commencing.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment whether he will ensure that research into the impact of European economic policy on disabled people is commissioned during the UK presidency. [19682]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  DfEE officials have provided the European Commission with details of research undertaken across Government into disability issues. This information will be used by the Commission in conjunction with similar reports from the other member states to identify where there is a significant need for co-ordinated research at a European level. It is not yet possible to say which subjects, if any, the Commission will identify as suitable for this kind of treatment but no areas have been ruled out.

  The Department has an extensive and continuing programme of disability research which addresses current priorities. The Department routinely publishes the results of the research it commissions in line with the requirements of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  New Deal
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance New Deal participants aged over 25 years and unemployed for more than two years will receive during the period before their six month placement begins. [19180]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We are currently considering the detailed design of the new deal for people aged 25 years or over and unemployed for two years or more. We will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  School Sport
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools are currently providing sports annual reports and prospectuses. [19482]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  All maintained schools are required to publish in their prospectus a statement indicating the aims of the governing body with respect to sport at their school and the provision made for sport. In its annual report to parents, the governing body must indicate the extent to which its aims were met and to give details of any notable sporting achievements by the school's teams. In our White Paper "Excellence in schools" we undertook to consult on the balance between requiring schools to include specific information and leaving more to their discretion.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers coaching at(a) primary school level have obtained NVQ 1 and (b) secondary level have obtained NVQ 2. [19484]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Rushey Mead School, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much aid he plans to give to Rushey Mead School, Leicester, under the New Deal for Schools. [19177]

  Mr. Byers
  All LEAs will be entitled to bid, on behalf of the schools they maintain, for the £1 billion-worth of resources which remains to be allocated under the New Deal for Schools, in addition to the £83 million that has already been allocated in the first round of NDS. Bids will be considered on the same basis as in the first round; namely, cost-effectiveness, urgency, and how far they will raise educational standards.

  If Rushey Mead School believes that it has a project that can be supported by NDS, I suggest that it discusses with Leicester City Council the possibility of including it in a future bid for NDS resources.

  National Curriculum (Music)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that music is made part of the national curriculum. [19350]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Music is a foundation subject in key stages 1, 2 and 3 of the National Curriculum.

  Development Education
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is his Department's estimate of the cost of providing relevant teaching materials for the integration of development issues into the national curriculum; [18941]

  (2) what arrangements will be made to ensure that the development education material proposed by the White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty" will be presented in an objective manner; [18947]
  521
  (3) which Minister in his Department is responsible for integrating development issues into the national curriculum. [18948]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I am responsible for the school curriculum, including the National Curriculum, and its assessment. There are already requirements and opportunities for pupils to study development issues through the National Curriculum, particularly in geography and history. The choice of materials to support the school curriculum is primarily a matter for individual schools. I understand, however, that the Department for International Development makes funds available to support organisations which produce materials to help schools address these issues.

  There are legal safeguards against biased teaching in schools. Schools are required to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views when they are taught about any political issue.

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the answer from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 10 November 1997,Official Report, column 441, if he will list the e-mail addresses of (a) Ministers, (b) senior officials and (c) chief executives of agencies for which he is responsible. [15879]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]The Department is planning to introduce a Department-wide Internet e-mail service by the end of this year. We will publish the information requested, on the Department's Internet home page, in the New Year, as soon as implementation of the new service has been completed.

  Pupil Admission Appeals
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appeals he has heard concerning pupil admissions to(a) GM primary schools; and (b) non-GM primary schools; and, in each case, how many time she has ruled that schools should accept additional pupils in classes in excess of 29 pupils. [19491]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  School admission appeals are heard by statutory independent appeal committees. The Secretary of State does, however, have a duty to consider any referral from a school directed under section 431 of the Education Act 1996 to accept a pupil. Since 1 May, he has only considered two primary school referrals, both from the same GM school. In each case the directions were issued by Essex LEA and resulted in a decision by the Secretary of State that the school should admit the pupil to a class in excess of 29.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money was allocated to the Careers Service in London in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1993–94, (d) 1994–95, (e) 1995–96 and (f) 1996–97; what sums have been allocated for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [19373]
  522
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The former Employment Department, which became part of the Department for Education and Employment in July 1995, allocated money for the careers services in London as follows:

  £ million

  1994–95

  25.3

  1995–96

  26.2

  1996–97

  26.5

  1997–98

  25.8

  Amounts for 1998–99 are not decided.

  Until 1994 careers services were largely financed through the Department of the Environment's Revenue Support Grant. Separate budget allocations for careers service regions within this budget are not available.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to publish the National Strategy for Child Care. [19948]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We are currently developing the National Child Care Strategy which will help parents, especially women, to balance family and working life and will make an announcement in the first part of next year.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to vary the level of grant in aid to the Equal Opportunities Commission. [19987]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The grant in aid for the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1998–99 will be set out in the DfEE Departmental Report, to be published in the new year.

  National Targets
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to update the national targets for education and training. [15144]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I will today announce the publication of a Consultation Document on the National Targets—"Targets for our Future", copies of which are being placed in the Library. The Government are inviting views on a number of new Targets which they believe better reflect their priorities and are more likely to generate the widespread commitment that is essential if we are to improve skills levels and be a competitive and inclusive nation.

  Education and Work
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the range and quality of opportunities for young people to link their education to work. [18478]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Today I shall be making a public announcement about investing in Young People, a strategy designed to tackle the problem of under-achievement, widen the range and improve the quality of education and training available to young people aged 14–18 and prepare them for the world of work. The strategy is aimed at making sure as many as
  523
  possible of our young people stay on in education and training after the age of 16, and that everyone in this age group achieves their full potential. As a Government we are committed to ensuring that all education and training for these young people provide the essential foundation for lifelong employability.

  The measures which make up the investing in Young People strategy include:

  I. All schools to set targets for raising attainment of qualifications at NVQ Level 2 at age 16.

  II. Widening the range of vocational options and the work relevance of the curriculum for 14–16 year olds.

  III. Introducing a single school leaving date at the end of June each year, so that no child should be able to leave school, in the year they become 16, until they have had a chance to sit for GCSE or other external examinations.

  IV. Measures to help young people plan and manage their own learning—including a new National Record of Achievement.

  V. The introduction of a Learning Card, promoting young people's entitlement to continue in learning post-16.

  VI. Refocusing the Careers Service to target support and guidance on those who need it most.

  VII. Developing a New Start strategy to re-engage disaffected young people from age 14 upwards in learning, where they have already dropped out or are in danger of doing so.

  VIII. Legislating to ensure that all young employees—with the support of their employer—can undertake education and training up to NVQ Level 2.

  IX. Introducing National Traineeships as a high-quality work-based route to NVQ level 2, building on the successful Modern Apprenticeships and including key skills.

  X. Raising Standards by improving the quality of all post-16 provision: setting targets, identifying success, spreading good practice, and eliminating failure.

  Schools, colleges TECs, careers services and the Youth Service all have a part to play in achieving our goals. But the involvement of employers is also essential. We want all employers to commit themselves to the training needs of all their young employees. If all our employers emulate the performance of the best, we will have the best-trained workforce in Europe.

  A booklet accompanying the launch of the investing in Young People strategy is being widely distributed to partners throughout industry, education and training, and copies will be available in the Library.

  Employment Zones
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made on introducing prototype employment zones; and if he will make a statement. [20116]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  On 17 November, I received bids from local partnerships in the eight areas invited to put forward proposals for prototype Employment Zones. All were of a high standard and included innovative solutions to local problems.

  I am pleased to announce that I have now decided to make funds available to the following five areas to develop prototype Employment Zones: Glasgow, Liverpool, North West Wales, Plymouth and South Teesside.
  524
  We will also be examining how best to carry forward the good work completed in the other three areas which submitted proposals.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Potato Sprays
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has evaluated into the effect on wildlife of spraying potato crops with sulphuric acid. [19242]

  Mr. Rooker
  All pesticides are carefully evaluated and approval for marketing or use is given only if it is established that a given product can be used without unacceptable risks to people, wildlife and the wider environment.

  The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides reviewed the approval of sulphuric acid in October and recommended that use could continue subject to specific restrictions.

  Food Packaging
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of whether consumers have adequate information about food packaging which is potentially disruptive to endocrine systems. [19711]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is recognised by most scientists that evidence of the disruption to endocrine systems by chemicals which might migrate from packaging is not conclusive at present and that considerable further research is required before there is adequate information about effects and causes. The Government have an active programme of research and surveillance on the migration of chemicals from packaging including possible "endocrine disrupters". The results of this work are reported in the MAFF/DH "Food Safety Information Bulletin" together with advice from expert committees.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of irradiated foodstuffs. [19791]

  Mr. Rooker
  The irradiation of food is permitted provided it has been irradiated in accordance with the Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations 1990 and labelled in accordance with the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. The Government support the common position text of the proposed food irradiation Directive agreed by the Council of Ministers on 27 October 1997.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of diagnostic tests to detect food that has been irradiated. [19790]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has developed an extensive range of methods to detect irradiated foods. Of these, four have been published in the Department's series of reports on non-statutory validated methods and a
  525
  further six are currently in the process of being validated. Together, these cover all the categories of food that might be irradiated.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his answer of 13 November 1997,Official Report, column 619, (1) when he expects to make a statement on his preferred option for the disposal of meat and bonemeal arising from the over-30-months scheme; [198201]

  (2) further to his answer of 13 November 1997, Official Report, column 619, if he will make a statement on the options for disposal of animal carcases under the over-thirty-months scheme. [19845]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government will announce their decisions on the various disposal options when a wide range of investigations and negotiations are complete. Good progress is being made and the Intervention Board will write this week to companies which bid for incineration under its integrated tender.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he has issued on the use or disposal of tallow produced from the render of animals under the over-30-months scheme. [19781]

  Mr. Rooker
  The majority of tallow produced under the over-30-months scheme (OTMS) is being stored pending a decision being taken on the disposal options. These are under active consideration. In the meantime, subject to the consent of the local authority, a small amount of OTMS tallow is being burned as fuel to power the rendering process.

  Beef Assurance Scheme
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to ensure that markets and processors are notified of the details of the Beef Assurance Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [19846]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Further to the answer given to the hon. Member on 19 November 1997,Official Report, column 229, the organisations which received details of the Beef Assurance Scheme included the main trade organisations representing livestock auctioneers, meat wholesalers, meat manufacturers, butchers and producers of meat products, as well as consumers and other bodies.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decisions were taken at the EU Ministerial Council on Telecommunications on 1 December; and what matters were voted upon. [20240]

  Mrs. Roche
  I represented the UK at the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 1 December.

  The Council reached unanimous agreement on a multi-annual programme to stimulate the establishment of the information society in Europe (Stimulis). There was
  526
  political agreement to adoption shortly of a common position on a directive, amending directive 97/33/EC on interconnection in telecommunications, concerning number portability and carrier pre-selection. The Council also unanimously adopted, without discussion, a directive on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector. There was also a televised debate on internet issues.

  Following European Commission presentations, the Council adopted conclusions on two Commission Communications: on the further development of mobile and wireless communications in Europe (universal mobile telecommunications system); and on digital signatures and encryption in electronic communication. The Commission also made oral presentations on a Communication on implementation by Member States of Community legislation in the telecommunications sector, and on the forthcoming Commission Green Paper on convergence in broadcasting, telecommunications and information technology. The Council took note of a progress report on negotiations on a draft directive on terminal equipment.

  I raised the problem of the century date change for computer systems and presented a paper on the subject.

  Insurance Companies
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to change the regulations made under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 regarding financial reporting by insurance companies. [20242]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Regulations have been laid before Parliament which make certain amendments to the Insurance Companies (Accounts and Statements) Regulations 1996 in the light of experience of the first year of implementation. These amendments are set out below.

  The information which life insurance companies are required to submit in respect of the long term business in their annual returns has been extended to provide the regulator with the additional detail necessary to be satisfied that "with profits" life insurance policies are meeting the reasonable expectations of policyholders.

  Two areas of disclosure have been removed from the scope of audit. Firstly, it was the intention under the previous Regulations that the inclusion of directors' certification on compliance with the money laundering guidelines within the scope of audit be optional, in recognition that in the normal course of business auditors are unlikely to be in a position to give an opinion on the reasonableness of this statement. The amendment clarifies this position. Secondly, it is important that the regulatory framework provide for independent audit assurance that directors' statements that their companies' practices are consistent with representations to policyholders have been reasonably made.

  The formulation in the existing regulations for obtaining this independent assurance has not provided satisfactory in practice and has been removed pending further consultation with the audit profession on how to introduce a more effective provision for future years. The statutory requirements relating to certificates by directors remain unaffected by these changes to the scope of audit.
  527
  Some of the wording and forms in the Insurance Companies (Accounts and Statements) Regulations 1996 have been clarified without materially changing their meaning.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decisions were taken at the EU Ministerial Council on the Internal Market on 27 November; and what matters were voted upon. [20241]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Noble Friend the Minister for European Trade and Competitiveness represented the United Kingdom at the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 27 November.

  The Council reached political agreement by qualified majority voting on proposals on legal protection of biotechnological inventions, on insurance groups, on the extension of the KAROLUS programme (for exchanges of Single Market enforcement officials).

  Common positions were agreed by qualified majority on proposals on Action Robert Schuman, an initiative to improve the training and informing of the legal profession about European law; on a proposal on in vitro diagnostic medical devices; on a modification of Directive 83/189/EC, to extend to information society services its mechanism for Member States to notify draft technical measures to the Commission and other Member States; on amendment of the food additives Directive 95/2/EC; and on a proposal on coffee and chicory extracts.

  The Council discussed the Single Market Action Plan, legislative simplification, including proposals for revising the INTRASTAT regulations, and the proposals on chocolate, the Commission's Green Paper on food law, the legal protection of designs, and the free movement of goods.

  The Council also received presentations from the Commission on proposals on foodstuffs, bus and coach construction, reform of the Community customs transit system, the European Company Statute, product liability, and the Community patent system.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton dated Tuesday 30 September regarding the Inntrepreneur Pub Company. [19733]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  A letter from the hon. Member about the Inntrepreneur Pub Company dated 13 August was received by my Department on 19 August. A reply was sent on 26 August. My Department has not received a further letter from that hon. Member on this matter since that date. On receiving the Parliamentary Question my Department telephoned the hon. Member's office to obtain a copy of the letter dated 30 September. I have since replied to that letter.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many claims for unfair dismissal have reached an 528
  industrial tribunal; and what were the outcomes and compensation paid for (a) employment tribunals, (b) the Insolvency Service, (c) Companies House, (d) the Patent Office, (e) the Radio communications Agency and (f) ACAS in each of the last two years. [19517]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  In the past two years, one unfair dismissal case brought by an employee of the Government Agencies was heard by an industrial tribunal. The case involved Companies House. At the hearing on 16 June 1997, the tribunal ruled that the applicant was not unfairly dismissed.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what export controls her Department operates in respect of the export of mixed oxide fuel; [18495]

  (2) what non-proliferation measures her Department undertakes in respect of the export of mixed oxide fuel; [18492]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the compliance of United Kingdom (a) manufacture and (b) export of mixed oxide fuel with the United Kingdom's international obligations in respect of (i) export control and (ii) non-proliferation. [18497]

  Mrs. Roche
  The UK's export controls on nuclear and nuclear-related goods are derived from international nuclear non-proliferation commitments and membership of international nuclear export control regimes, in particular the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) whose members have agreed common guidelines for the transfer of nuclear and nuclear-related goods and technology.

  These commitments are given effect in the relevant legislation, which in this case is Council Regulation (EC) No. 3381/94 on the export of dual use goods and the related Council Decision 94/942/CSFP as amended.

  In accordance with the legislation, mixed oxide fuel (MOX) requires an export license. Individual applications for licences for exports of MOX are considered on their merits, but before any license is issued certain conditions have to be fulfilled. These include assurances from the recipient government:
  that the goods will not be used for any purpose that would result in any nuclear explosive device;
  that the goods will be placed under effective physical protection;
  that the transfer will only take place once the receiving State has brought into an agreement with the IAEA requiring the application of safeguards on all source and special fissionable materials in its current and future peaceful activities;
  that the goods would only be transferred to a third country if the recipient country had provided the same assurances as those required by the supplier for the original transfer.

  Both the manufacture and export of MOX are entirely consistent with the UK's international obligations in the field of export control and non-proliferation. In addition to the controls on the export of MOX outlined above, all civil nuclear materials in the UK, including MOX, are subject to Euratom safeguards.

  Inward Investment
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)of 20 November 1997,Official Report, column 281, on the concordat on inward investments, when she expects the concordat to be published. [18150]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 3 December 1997,Official Report, column 255.

  Investment (United States)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current annual level of(a) US inward investment into the United Kingdom and (b) United Kingdom investment into the US; and if she will make a statement. [19736]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  In 1995, the latest year for which figures are available, the United Kingdom's net inward direct investment from the US was £9.1 billion. The UK's net outward direct investment in the US was £10.4 billion.

  Barclays Bank (Dispute)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will request ACAS to invite Barclays Bank and the unions representing Barclays' staff to use its conciliation services to help resolve the current dispute. [19813]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  ACAS is an independent body and the Government cannot and should not direct it to act in any particular way. ACAS of course stands ready to assist but can become involved in talks only where both sides agree.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from(a) Barclays Bank, (b) BIFU, (c) UNIFI and (d) ACAS on the current dispute between Barclays Bank and its staff; and if she will make a statement. [19812]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department has received some representations from the Banking Insurance and Finance Union and UNIFI about this dispute. ACAS is an independent body and it does not make representations to Government about individual disputes.

  Industrial disputes are matters for the parties concerned to resolve with the assistance of ACAS where both sides agree.

  Horticultural Industry
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how the Government's proposals for a minimum wage will take account of piece work payments in the horticultural industry. [18592]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The National Minimum Wage Bill make provision for the hourly rate of remuneration of workers to be determined in regulations following consideration by the Low Pay Commission. The statutory 530
  minimum pay rates for agricultural workers, including those on piece work in the horticultural industry, will not be set at a level lower than the National Minimum Wage.

  Temporary Workers
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the legal rights applicable to temporary workers who have been employed for less than two years. [19578]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  All employees, whether temporary or not, have the same statutory rights, some of which depend on the length of service. Many employment rights apply as soon as an employee starts work, including protection against unlawful deductions from wages, against adverse treatment on grounds of sex, race, disability, trade union membership or non-membership or activities, or for taking specified types of action on health and safety grounds, and against dismissal for maternity-related reasons or for seeking to enforce statutory rights.

  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many overseas offices the Invest in Britain Bureau has; and if she will indicate(a) the number of staff operating out of each office, (b) the location of each office and (c) the countries or regions covered by each office. [19253]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Invest in Britain Bureau has an overseas sales force of 57 in 17 FCO posts abroad carrying out full time inward investment promotion work, the majority of whom are FCO staff. In addition a further 34 staff give some of their time to inward investment promotion work.

  Details are shown in the following table.

  Invest in Britain Bureau: Location of inward investment offices in overseas posts

  Country

  City

  Number of staff

  Country/region covered

  North America

  Canada

  Toronto

  4

  USA

  Atlanta

  2

  Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee

  Boston

  2

  Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island Vermont

  Chicago

  5

  Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin

  Houston

  2

  Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

  Los Angeles

  4

  Arizona, Califomia (part), Hawaii, Nevada (Clark County), Utah

  San Francisco

  2

  Alaska, Califomia (part), Idaho, Montana, Nevada (South), Oregan, Washington, Wyoming

  531

  Invest in Britain Bureau: Location of inward investment offices in overseas posts

  Country

  City

  Number of staff

  Country/region covered

  USA (cont.)

  New York

  10

  Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington DC, West Virginia

  Total

  31

  Europe

  France

  Paris

  1

  Germany

  Dusseldorf

  2

  Northern Germany

  Munich

  2

  Southern Germany

  Total

  5

  Asia-Pacific

  Australia

  Sydney

  1

  Hong Kong (post)

  1

  Hong Kong

  Hong Kong (Regional Office)

  3

  Asia Pacific region excluding Japan

  Japan

  Tokyo

  4

  Eastern Japan

  Osaka (including Nagoya)

  4

  Western Japan

  Taiwan

  Taipei

  4

  Korea

  Seoul

  4

  Total

  21

  1A further 34 staff in overseas posts give some of their time to inward investment work.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her energy policy. [19709]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government's broad energy policy is to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable energy. We are reviewing a number of specific policy areas, such as the regulation of utilities' support for renewables and clean coal technology, and how the issues of security of supply and fuel diversity should be addressed in considering applications for power station developments.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many section 36 applications for permission to build and use gas-fired power stations are awaiting decision; [16535]

  (2) what factors led her Department to approve BP's application to build a gas-fired power station at Baglan Bay; how long it took her Department to determine the application; and what has been the average time applications have taken to be determined since 1 May. [16524]

  (3) if she will estimate the coal production the new Baglan Bay gas station will displace. [16575]
  532
  Mrs. Beckett
  No decision has yet been made on the proposed power station at Baglan Bay. Following the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry on Wednesday 3 December, this is one of the 28 applications on which we propose to defer a decision until the work on the review has been completed.

  Incorporated Financial Accountant Qualification
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will review the list of qualifications under the European Communities Professional Qualification Regulation 1991 to assess the advantages of adding the incorporated financial accountant qualification. [14267]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Regulation lists professions which are regulated by statute, law, administrative provision or, under a special paragraph applying to the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, by virtue of membership of a chartered professional body. The list is reviewed regularly and updated when necessary. The Institute of Financial Accountants does not fall within the above categories.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on trade union recognition in the workplace. [18777]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government believes that employees should be free to belong, or not to belong, to trade unions and, where a majority of a relevant workforce vote for it in a ballot, unions should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes. My Department will be publishing a White Paper on fairness at work, and principally on union recognition, in the first part of next year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on participation in stakeholder pensions. [16732]

  Mr. Denham
  Stakeholder Pensions will be a new type of pension scheme which will provide simple, secure, flexible and value-for-money pension arrangements for many of those who do not have the opportunity to build a secure retirement income under the current system; they include many women, part-time workers, those on temporary contracts and many of the self-employed.

  In developing and promoting Stakeholder Pensions, the Government sees a key role for new partnerships involving financial services organisations, employers, employees, trades unions and other affinity groups. The Stakeholder Pension consultation document seeks views on how a detailed framework may best be established which allows these partnerships to develop.

  Benefits Legislation
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultation will be undertaken with the
  533
  local communities, members of the public, voluntary organisations and charitable groups in respect of forthcoming legislation on social security benefits. [17889]

  Mr. Field
  Our manifesto set out our commitment to review and reform welfare in consultation and partnership with the people. We aim to modernise the structure and delivery of Social Security to encourage financial independence, while simultaneously promoting social cohesion and well-being; to develop an active welfare system which supports work, savings and honesty; and to help tackle effectively unjustifiable social and economic inequalities.

  We want to encourage widespread debate throughout the country. For example, we have already completed the first part of the consultation exercise on the Pensions Review. Further consultation will follow in due course. We will also be publishing a Green Paper on Welfare Reform at the turn of the year which will set out the principles underlying the new directions for welfare in the 21st Century.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual savings to date arising from the termination of invalidity benefit and the introduction of incapacity benefit; and what proportion of those savings have been achieved by the removal of or reduction in benefit from those in receipt of invalidity benefit. [18654]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.

  £million

  1995–96

  280

  1996–97

  790

  1. Figures are in 1996–97 prices.

  2. It is not possible to identify separately savings attributable to removal or reduction in benefit from claimants previously in receipt of invalidity benefit.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of persons prosecuted in England and Wales for making a false declaration in respect of benefit claims for 1996. [19374]

  Mr. Denham
  The total number of persons prosecuted in England and Wales for making a false declaration in the calendar year 1996 amounted to 12,408. This figure includes all benefits administered by the Benefits Agency and excludes Housing Benefit which is administered by Local Authorities.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations the Minister for Women has made to the Department for Education and Employment about the grant in aid for the Equal Opportunities Commission. [19985]

  Ms.Ruddock
  As Ministers for Women, both I and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women, are routinely in contact 534
  with Department for Education and Employment Ministerial colleagues on a range of matters of mutual interest, including the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Women's Issues (Cabinet Sub-Committee)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the membership of the Cabinet sub-committee on women's issues. [19988]

  Ms Ruddock
  The information is as follows:

  Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women—right hon. Harriet Harman MP (Chair);

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—right hon. Dr. Marjorie Mowlam MP;

  Secretary of State for International Development—right hon. Clare Short MP;

  Financial Secretary, Treasury—Dawn Primarolo MP;

  Minister of State, Home Office—Joyce Quin MP;

  Minister of State, Scottish Office—Henry McLeish MP;

  Minister of State, Department of Health—Tessa Jowell MP;

  Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment—right hon. Andrew Smith MP;

  Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—Glenda Jackson MP and Angela Eagle MP;

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry—Barbara Roche MP;

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office—Win Griffiths MP;

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of Public Service—Peter Kilfoyle MP.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are being taken to ensure that the insecurity of employment does not act as a disincentive to work to those lone parents eligible for income support before 5 April 1998. [19847]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Independent research suggests that the average additional income for lone parents already in work and on Family Credit is over £50 a week above the estimate of their out-of-work income. Research also shows that lone parents want to work but face a number of barriers that prevent them from doing so. In particular, they need practical help with job-search, training and with finding and paying for childcare. The Government has provided all of this with the New Deal for Lone Parents and the National Childcare Strategy. This will help make the transition to work seem much more attractive to those lone parents who currently feel trapped in benefit dependency.

  The Government has taken steps to preserve work incentives for lone parents who are already receiving Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance. Those who are receiving either of these benefits with the lone parent rate of family premium at 5 April 1998 will be able to claim the lone parent rate of Child Benefit after 31 May 1998 if they move off benefit into work.

  Attendance and Disability Allowances
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people in Warrington, North constituency are currently in receipt of attendance allowance; [19592]
  535
  (2) how many people in (a) the North West Region and (b) Warrington, North constituency are currently in receipt of disability living allowance; [19591]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the number of new claims for disability living allowance which are likely to be made over the next five years in (a) the North West Region and (b) Warrington, North constituency. [19590]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Social Security benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Helen Jones, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking for details of the number of people in Warrington North constituency and North West region who are currently in receipt of Attendance Allowance (AA) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  The number of customers in receipt of AA in the Warrington North constituency is approximately 1,900, as at 31 August 1997.
  The number of customers in receipt of DLA in the Warrington North constituency is approximately 4,100 and in the North West region is approximately 229,600, as at 31 August 1997. The North West Region consists of Cumbria, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire counties.
  These figures have been extrapolated from a 5% sample in conjunction with postcode data.
  The forecast for New Claims for DLA is not available.
  I hope you find this helpful.

HEALTH

  Emergency Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to cater for an increase in emergency hospital admissions this winter. [18242]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have provided an additional £269 million for the NHS in England in the current financial year. This is being used to ease pressures on the health and social care system during the winter, as well as to start rebuilding the NHS for the future.

  Buckinghamshire Health Authority
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with Buckinghamshire health authority on its plans for achieving equity of funding across their area. [18247]

  Mr. Milburn
  Officials from Anglia and Oxford Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive have held discussions with Buckinghamshire Health Authority. The Health Authority recognise the need to target resources at the area of greatest need in the county. An exercise comprehensively to map current expenditure is near completion and any proposed redistribution of resources will begin in 1998/99.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the numbers of patients who will have been waiting for more than 12 months for treatment in May 1998. [18248]
  536
  Mr. Milburn
  The substantial extra resources we have made available for the NHS for this year and next should enable us to make a start on restraining the growth in waiting lists and times we inherited from the previous administration. The programme of action announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 18 November will ensure we have shorter waiting lists and times by the end of the present Parliament. For the short term our priority is to eliminate 18 month waits for admission to hospital by 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce hospital waiting lists. [18241]

  Mr. Milburn
  On 18 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a wide-ranging programme of action for reducing waiting lists.

  We are determined that waiting lists will be shorter by the end of this Parliament.

  Haemophilia
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy towards the provision of recombinant factor VIII for the treatment of haemophilia sufferers. [18249]

  Mr. Boateng
  We take the same sound and fair approach to all treatments, namely that they should be clinically effective and based on sound evidence.

  Concerns have been raised about access to this particular treatment. We are actively addressing them.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to address the additional burden placed on the National Health Service arising from elderly persons cancelling their private health insurance. [18250]

  Mr. Boateng
  In allocating resources to the National Health Service there is no account taken of the incidence of private medical insurance. Health authorities are charged with assessing the total health needs of their local population and do so based on clinical need and not ability to pay.

  Nutrition Standards
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has for improving nutrition standards in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on health initiatives in this area. [18251]

  Ms Jowell
  Our new health strategy for England will be set out in a Green Paper and issued for consultation later this winter. The underlying principle is to improve the health of all the population and, especially, to improve the health of those who are worst off. We know that a healthy and balanced diet has an important part to play.

  Improving nutritional standards in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and any associated health initiatives, are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Improving nutritional standards of school meals is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  Expensive Drug Treatments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the basis on which patients in different parts of the country are given access to expensive drug treatments. [18252]

  Mr. Milburn
  The White Paper gives details of our plans to ensure that patients have access to the treatment they need, wherever they live.

  Elderly People (Treatment Costs)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates his Department has made of the cost of treating people over 60 years of age. [18253]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not collected centrally that would enable an estimate to be made of the costs of treating people aged 60–64. Treatment for people aged 65 and over, who make up about 16 per cent. of the population, accounts for about 40 per cent. of expenditure on hospital and community health services. Elderly people use a proportionately greater volume of services than those used by the rest of the adult population, primarily because their incidence of disease is higher, but also because their pace of recovery after illness may be somewhat slower. People aged 75 and over in particular show more complex patterns of health problems. They often have a combination of several conditions and these may be complicated by general frailty and social problems such as the recent death of a spouse or relatives living some distance away.

  Telemedicine
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to increase the use of telemedicine in the National Health Service. [18254]

  Ms Jowell
  We are encouraging developments in telemedicine in the National Health Service. Telemedicine is a research priority within the Health Technology Assessment programme and several projects to assess its effects on the NHS will be announced shortly.

  NHS (Co-operation)
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he plans to take to increase co-operation between purchasers and providers in the National Health Service. [18255]

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to overcome fragmentation between trusts and health authorities in the NHS. [18260]

  Mr. Milburn
  The White Paper on the National Health Service sets out our plans to replace the fragmentation and competition of the internal market which we inherited with co-operation and a single National Health Service.

  Annual Contracts
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes he plans to make to the system of annual contracts in the national health service. [18256]

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes he plans to make to the system of annual contracts in the NHS. [18259]

  Mr. Milburn
  The short-termism of the market which was characterised by annual contracting will be replaced by longer-term agreements.

  NHS Trusts (Non-executive Directors)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role and experience of non-executive directors of national health service trusts. [18257]

  Mr. Milburn
  Non-executive Directors come from a variety of different backgrounds and experience. What they are expected to share is a commitment to the aims of the National Health Service and to meeting the healthcare needs of their local community.

  NHS Management and Finances
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the management and finances of(a) Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals Trust and (b) West Hertfordshire health authority. [18258]

  Mr. Milburn
  The health authority and trusts in West Hertfordshire face an underlying recurrent deficit of £12.5 million. A discussion document has been issued for local comment, prior to formal consultation in the spring, on options to restore financial balance within the next 2–3 years. The authority has been awarded an additional £9 million in 1998–99 of which £3 million is growth money.

  The Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals National Health Service Trust is currently facing financial constraints but a financial recovery plan has been agreed with the NHS Executive, North Thames Regional Office to restore financial balance over the next 2–3 years.

  NHS Best Practice
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to promote best practice throughout the NHS. [18261]

  Mr. Milburn
  "The New NHS" White Paper sets out a fresh approach to promoting best practice in the National Health Service.

  Health at Work
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priorities for promoting health at work he intends to set NHS trusts. [18262]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government attach very high priority to the occupational health and safety of National Health Service staff. Our priorities include stopping avoidable accidents, developing proper strategies for avoiding violence, and recognising the effect of occupational stress, addressing its causes and supporting staff accordingly. The Government have, through the
  539
  Health at Work in the NHS project, piloted work on organisational stress, developed networks for the exchange of best practice and produced guidance on risk assessment, and sickness absence management, and are working with the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance on avoiding violence to staff.

  Barnet Health Services
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the delivery of National Health Service services in the Borough of Barnet, with particular reference to the future of the Edgware Hospital site. [18263]

  Mr. Milburn
  Barnet Health Authority's review of local health services, which included services to he provided from the Edgware Hospital site, has just been concluded. The health authority will now consider the findings of the review.

  Managers
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce the number of managers in the National Health Service. [18264]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government are committed to maximising the proportion of National Health Service resources that are dedicated to patient care. We have no doubt that good management is essential to the effective running of the National Health Service. But we want to target unnecessary bureaucracy so that management effort is focused on improving health and health services. Our action to reduce management costs, including the changes announced in today's White Paper, will release £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament which will be ploughed back into direct patient care.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress with the PFI hospital building programme. [18265]

  Mr. Milburn
  The prioritisation of major acute hospital Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes and the passing of the National Health Service (Private Finance) Act 1997 in July have resulted in financial close and start on site for the first two whole-hospital PFI schemes, at Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust (£115 million) and Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust (£87 million). The other 13 major acute PF1 schemes that have been prioritised are scheduled to reach financial close by the end of 1998. We are also considering how PFI can usefully be extended into the non-acute and primary care fields.

  Commissioning
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to involve patients in the new GP commissioning pilot projects. [18266]

  Mr. Milburn
  One of the selection criteria for the General Practitioner Commissioning Group pilots was that they should have plans to work closely with carers and patients in planning and commissioning services. Each GP Commissioning Group will need to explore locally how best to achieve this. The pilots are to be 540
  evaluated so that best practice can be identified and shared. Arrangements for involving patients will form part of the evaluation.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plan to establish a Royal Commission on the funding of long-term care, indicating its start date. [17942]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of the Royal Commission on long-term care were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the House on 4 December 1997,Official Report, columns 489–99.

  Chitosan
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the Government's guidance ont he sale of the amino polysaccharide Chitosan as a slimming product; [18590]

  (2) what clinical trials his Department has evaluated in respect of the (a) safety and (b) effectiveness of the amino polysaccharide sold as Chitosan for slimming purposes. [18588]

  Ms Jowell
  The sale of Chitosan is not controlled by the Foods Intended for Use of Energy Restricted Diets for Weight Reduction Regulations 1997. Chitosan is classed as a food product and as such it is covered by the general provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990, which provides that all foods shall be safe, of the quality intended and not misleadingly labelled.

  The Department is not aware of any clinical trials of this product.

  Aricept and Beta-interferon
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce national prescribing policies for(a) Aricept and (b) beta-interferon. [18599]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans to introduce national prescribing policies specific to Aricept or beta-interferon. EL(94)72, issued in 1994, asked health authorities to set up Area Prescribing Committees to ensure the appropriateness of hospital-led prescribing and to develop authority-wide policies for the managed entry of new drugs such as Aircept and beta-interferon into the NHS. Copies of EL(94)72 are available in the Library.

  The White Paper, published today, sets out plans for a National Institute for Clinical Excellence which advises the NHS on the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatments. Individual health authorities will then be able to make more informed judgments on the relative benefits of treatments.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the resistance of tuberculosis to drugs; and if he will make a statement. [18399]
  541
  Mr. Boateng
  The Department has not directly commissioned any research into the resistance of tuberculosis to drugs. The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC supports a number of studies into tuberculosis and these take the form of both grants to Universities and research funded in its own Units and Institutes. In 1995–96, the MRC's spend on tuberculosis research was £1.5 million. However, little of this research addresses the issue of drug resistance directly; it is largely basic research which will underpin and inform future work in the area.

  The Department and its expert advisers do keep under review the results of studies in this field.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service, together with similar organisations throughout the United Kingdom, has heightened its surveillance of drug resistance in tuberculosis. An Expert Working Group has been set up under the Interdepartmental Working Group on Tuberculosis to make recommendations for the prevention and control of tuberculosis in immunocompromised patients and of drug resistant tuberculosis. Consultation on its draft guidance has been completed and the final report is expected to be issued shortly.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the savings across the NHS from ending the internal market; how this money will be redistributed; and over what time scale. [19685]

  Mr. Milburn
  The action the Government are taking to abolish the internal market and reduce bureaucracy, including the changes announced in the White Paper "The New NHS" (Cm 3807), which has been published today, will reduce the amount spent on management costs by £1 billion over the lifetime of the Parliament. Savings will be re-invested in direct patient care.

  Locality Commissioning
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the terms of reference of(a) the Audit Commission and (b) other bodies involved in the process of replacing the internal market system in the National Health Service with a system of locality commissioning. [19684]
  542
  Mr. Milburn
  The White Paper "The New NHS" (Cm 3807) published earlier today sets out the new roles and responsibilities of health authorities, National Health Service trusts, Primary Care Groups and other bodies in securing quicker, better treatment and care for patients.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives the Government intends to give general practitioners to participate in locality commissioning projects. [19683]

  Mr. Milburn
  The White Paper "The New NHS" (Cm 3807), which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House today, sets out the Government's plans for Primary Care Groups which will bring together general practitioners and community nurses to commission services.

  The new arrangements will offer them the opportunity to shape services for their patients. They will have available their population's share of the local resources for hospital and community services, prescribing and the general practice infrastructure, and will have the opportunity to deploy resources and savings to strengthen local services and ensure that patterns of care best reflect their patients' needs. Further details are contained in the White Paper.

  Local Health Care
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes he intends to make to the role of NHS trusts in respect of the delivery of local health care. [18239]

  Mr. Milburn
  As set out in the White Paper "The New NHS" (Cm 3807), there will be a new focus on quality in National Health Service trusts.

  They will no longer compete, but work in partnership with other local bodies to provide the best health care possible for local needs.

  Ayaz Sheikh
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the case of Ayaz Sheikh of Thorpewell, Leicester; and what representations he has received from hon. Members on this case. [19947]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are aware of this case which is a matter for Leicestershire Health Authority. My hon. Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about this case on 28 October 1997 and my noble Friend the Minister of State replied on 25 November 1997.

  We have asked the Chairman of Leicestershire Health Authority, Mr. Neil Townsend, to write to my hon. Friend setting out the latest position as soon as possible.

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

Family Life: Ministerial Study
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Ministerial Group on The Family has yet agreed on the scope of its work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the group chaired by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is looking at a wide range of issues concerned with family policy as part of the Government's manifesto commitment to strengthen family life. Additionally, a ministerial seminar was held last month to consider the best aims and means for the Government to adopt in promoting successful parenting. A report of the seminar has been prepared and is freely available from the Home Office special conferences unit.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which he delivered with charm, making it as easy as possible—characteristics for which he is so well known in the House and which cause many of us to hope that the rumours about promotion are true. In these days when the Government will have no secrets, why, despite a number of Written Questions, are the Government unable to explain what they regard as the definition of a family?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this Government do not seek to prescribe how people live
2
their lives. I have a quotation for the noble Lord. It criticises those who,
"cannot imagine that any social structure which does not accord with their ephemeral prejudices could be popular, acceptable, or morally defensible".
That comes from a book called Unfinished Business written by the noble Lord, which I have here. I found it in a bookshop in Moreton-in-Marsh. It was a secondhand bookshop. The price is shown as £13.99 in the UK only. That is to stop those nasty foreign people reading it. Then the infinitely sad palimpsest, "Reduced to £3.50"—but struck out. Then, "Reduced to £2"—also struck out. And finally, "Reduced to £1." I got it for 50p.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, perhaps I may remind my noble friend of the Conservative Party's traditional claim to be the party of the family. Can my noble friend therefore shed any light on why successive Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer failed to help the family? In fact, they whittled away any tax advantages that previously accrued.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that those points are well taken by the party opposite as it reflects upon the consequence of its policies in the form of the effective emphatic repudiation delivered by the electorate in May.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Minister answer one point about what constitutes a family? Is it restricted to situations in which the parents are married to each other, or does it extend to partners? Does it even extend to nominal parents who are of the same sex?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I venture to repeatwhat I said to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, whose good wishes I warmly reciprocate. We are notin the business of preaching or prescribing. Families in our society vary infinitely. Let me give the example which does not fall within any of the categories enumerated by the noble Lord,Lord Campbell of Croy. What about a widower who is bringing up his children alone? What

3
about the widow in similar circumstances? Do they not need help? Do they not need our decent sympathy? I beg to suggest that they do.
Lord Henley: My Lords, will the Minister now answer the Question put by my noble friend Lord Tebbit and offer to the House a definition of what is a family. My noble friend asked a number of Written Questions on this very subject some months ago. The Minister merely referred him to the dictionaries in the Library of the House. I have looked at one dictionary which states that a family is a set of parents, children and relatives. Does the Minister agree with that? Does he agree that the family is confined to that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I looked up the Written Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, which was:
"Lexicography is not currently a function of Her Majesty's Government".—[Official Report, 29/10/97; col. WA242.]
We live in a diverse society. People are entitled to diverse views about the way in which they wish to run their lives. The ministerial group which is focusing on these issues is directing its attention towards the serious continuing problem of children being brought up in inadequate circumstances. It is not for me or the Government to define precisely what is a family unit. Does a family consist, for instance, of two people who married late in life and who, by definition, will never have children? I beg to suggest that it does. The mark of a civilised society is to accommodate diversity in others.
Baroness Young: My Lords, this is a serious matter. Will the Minister consider what one says to young people, especially in schools, or when bringing them up? He has defined a family widely—much wider than some of us would define it. With all respect to him, there is a great distinction between a widower and a widow, and some other single parent families, because their circumstances are different. What definition of a family—as a signal and in order to help them—would he give to young people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if they asked my advice I would say that if you bring children into the world you have responsibilities. Bringing children into the world is not simply a private activity because other people are affected. Furthermore, I would advise them that if they had children I hope they would treat them with affection, respect and love, even if their chosen way of life was different from that of their parents.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the ultimate test of a family is that its members recognise that they are in one and are happy within it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe there to be a good deal of virtue in what the noble Lord says.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that no wise government would seek to
4
prescribe how people should live their lives, is the Minister prepared to affirm that marriage is the main means by which family life is strengthened in view of the fact that there are publicly made commitments to one another and a public interest in the successful parenting of the children within that structure?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is undoubtedly a public interest in the successful raising of families within married life. Not everyone has that infinite benefit. While recognising the validity of what the right reverend Prelate says, perhaps I may say with respect that not everyone has that good fortune. We know that a significant number of people who marry become divorced and we must consider what to do about the children of those circumstances as well as many other circumstances about which we all know so well.

Nuclear Weapons: Maintenance and Disposal
2.44 p.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated total cost in the current financial year of maintaining the capability to design, produce, maintain the safety of, store, move and dispose of nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom; and of providing, operating, maintaining and disposing of the Royal Navy's ballistic missile submarine fleet, including its missiles.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, the estimated cost of maintaining the capability to design, produce, maintain the safety of, store, move and dispose of nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom is around £410 million in the current financial year. A significant element of this figure is related to the decommissioning of old facilities, warheads and equipment and the management of historical waste.
The cost of providing, operating, maintaining and disposing of the Royal Navy's ballistic missile submarine fleet and its missiles is estimated to be some £530 million in the current financial year. This figure includes the operating cost of Trident, which has been estimated at £200 million a year over the 30-year lifetime of the system. It also includes some warhead-related costs and costs related to the phasing out of Polaris.
We are looking at the basis upon which cost estimates have been calculated in the light of operating experience and as part of the wider Strategic Defence Review.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extremely interesting Answer. Does he agree that when people ask loose questions—for example, questions about the annual cost of Trident—the figures should be

5
quoted and not the £200 million a year, which is merely the operating costs of the ballistic missile submarine fleet?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, Her Majesty's Ministers always attempt to answer the Question in the terms in which it has been phrased.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the sizeable sum of nearly £1 billion a year could be better spent elsewhere within the defence budget? Will he consider spending it on re-equipping and retraining the armies of the eastern European nations such as the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? Will he also consider putting that suggestion to the Strategic Defence Review?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I must start from the premise that this Government, like their predecessors, consider that the money being spent represents good value and I have no doubt that the new constructive Opposition will take the same view. I am interested in the menu of suggestions which the noble Earl put forward, but I do not believe that at this time any of them is a practical way ahead for the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the sum which he has mentioned, which is a small proportion of the defence budget, is a small price to pay for deterring potential aggressors in a world in which the weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them are in the arsenals of an increasing number of dangerous and unpredictable regimes?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his remarks and I agree with him. It may be of interest to the House to note that, for example, the current Russian stockpile of nuclear weapons includes many weapons of the 100 to 200 kilotonne range and some as large as 1 megatonne; that is, 1 million tonnes of high explosive equivalent.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the completeness of his Answer. Is he aware that the idea that the money might be better spent elsewhere is well founded? For example, if he were to discontinue the spending of so much money on our nuclear weapons he might be able to assist the Russians to get rid of some of their more dangerous weapons.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am always happy to entertain questions from my noble friend, but I am afraid that I am never likely to persuade him to agree with me on these matters. Obviously, we would rather not be in a position where we had to spend money on any armaments, let alone nuclear armaments, but, unfortunately, we must deal with the world in which we find ourselves.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to that part of the noble and
6
gallant Lord's Question which refers to "maintaining the capability" of keeping nuclear weapons and to the Minister's remarks about decommissioning. Will those costs come out of the defence budget or from some other source, because they appear to have nothing to do with the maintenance of the defence of the realm?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it is always the fate of defence Ministers that their budget must accept many costs which, in my view, are not strictly defence costs. However, the decommissioning costs will be expected to come out of the defence budget.
Lord Lewin: My Lords, I should first declare an interest. At one time I was the operational commander of the Polaris Fleet and, as Chief of the Defence staff, I was responsible for giving military advice to the government of the day as regards the choice of the successor system. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my noble friend Lord Chalfont. Will the Minister confirm that the Trident missiles are still assigned to NATO because I believe that our NATO allies, in particular the United States, would view with some dismay any change in that arrangements?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, with whom I spent many happy hours at the Ministry of Defence last time I was there. I am happy to confirm that our submarine nuclear forces are still assigned to NATO. The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. It would present us with considerable difficulties with our allies were there to be any change in those arrangements and none is contemplated.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Franco-British defence dialogue, which I understand has been covering nuclear weapons for some time, has identified any areas in which closer co-operation as regards positioning and stationing operations between the two independent nuclear forces could promote savings through a lower level of operation, given that there is no immediate threat to either country?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that the results of any such conversations would remain highly confidential.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the very large sums of money that the Minister has reported to the House as being involved in keeping nuclear weapons, will he confirm that even larger sums of money will be spent by other major nuclear powers on the maintenance of their nuclear weapons? Moreover, as the Government's long-term aim is to see the eradication of nuclear weapons worldwide, what steps are the Government taking to alert the other countries which have nuclear weapons to the large cost savings which could accrue if they were to join our Government in those long-term aims?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that the amount of money that the

7
United Kingdom spends on its strategic nuclear capability and sub-strategic nuclear capability is extremely modest compared with those sums spent by the other nuclear powers. I am happy to pass on my noble friend's suggestion to my right honourable friend in the other place that he draws the attention of the other nuclear powers to the sums of money which might be saved. However, I regret to say that I see no immediate progress in that field, despite the recent remarks by President Yeltsin.

EU: International Development Policies
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to influence European Union policies on international development, and to ensure that more EU development aid goes to the world's poorest communities.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we seek to influence the European Union both through our formal role in the decision-making process and by regular contact at all levels. Improving the poverty focus of the European Union's aid programme is a key objective. We are pursuing that in discussions in relation to the future of the Lome agreement. We shall take that forward during the UK presidency in work on securing commitments to international development targets and in following up the poverty resolution agreed in 1993.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that long and far-reaching Answer. Does he not agree that the British presidency provides us with a unique opportunity to influence EU development aid? Does he accept that the OECD targets provide a good objective and that we could allocate more aid to social sectors and civil society and delegate more decision-making powers away from the Commission into both overseas projects and local partners?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the objectives which the noble Earl describes are the Government's objectives: to focus the aid programme on the poorest countries; and within much of our aid programme for all countries, to focus on the poorest sectors. That involves many of the social objectives to which the noble Earl referred. During our presidency I am sure that my right honourable friend will take the opportunity to steer the discussion among European Ministers to those ends.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way in which we could influence the European Union in its development programmes is by trying to speed up the major capital works to which it is already committed? I am
8
thinking, for example, of the Nacala port and railway corridor in Mozambique which is taking a painfully long time to come to fruition.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are aware of inefficiencies in the programme both on the ground and within the European Commission itself. Indeed. the Secretary of State has referred to some of those inefficiencies, and the capital programme requires special attention, which it will be given.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of those inefficiencies within the European Union could be solved if some of the work were undertaken by member nations working with the European Union? I do not suggest repatriation programmes. However, a number of nations, not only this one, have very good teams which could implement those projects much more speedily and cost effectively than is currently happening in the European Union. Would the Minister please ask the Secretary of State to look at that matter?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, certainly, without prejudice to the delivery of our bilateral programmes, it is our view that the expertise present in this country and in the DfID in particular could be used to greater effect by the Commission and in the European Union's programmes, and we are certainly looking at that.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government will use the presidency of the EU to put forward a European Union-wide ban on the practice of tied aid? That will go a great deal further than many other measures for making good use of aid.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware of the White Paper commitment on changing the direction of aid within this country. Of course, bilateral aid is a matter for each individual member state. It would be presumptuous of us to move into their areas. Nevertheless, I believe that there is something in what the noble Lord says and we shall be attempting a common approach on those matters across all the members of the European Union.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister persuade his colleagues in the European Community that one of the better ways in which to help developing countries in the third world would be if Europe were to desist from its protectionist agricultural policies which cause so much damage to the economies of third world countries as well as increasing the price of food to poor people in Europe itself?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is a fairly common position within this House that the CAP is as damaging to that dimension of our policy as it is to others. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have put the reform of the CAP

9
firmly back on the agenda. However, that desire does not take away from the need to develop development aid both bilaterally and through the European Union.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, are the Government prepared to make a statement about the particular aims which they hope to achieve during their presidency with regard to EU international aid? If not, are not their fine words just empty, as so many of their recent statements have proved to be?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is not only broadening the debate but is also totally misrepresenting the record of this Government who have been far better at delivering their promises in the short time that they have been in office than were their predecessors.
As regards the part of the noble Lord's question which is relevant to this Question, we are moving up to the renegotiation of the Lomé agreement. Many of the principles which we set out in our White Paper will be applied within that context. We await the Commission's proposals in that area. We hope that within our presidency we shall establish a more effective negotiating position for the Lome agreement. That and some of the other objectives which have been referred to will form a major part of the development council's work in the British presidency.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to the importance of the Lome agreement in this context. Will he inform the House about what will be the Government's position, together with their European partners, towards the multilateral agreement on investment in so far as it relates to the needs of the poorest countries of the world?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is a complex relationship which is primarily a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for International Development. However, there are aspects of that agreement which need to be taken into account and there are aspects which the WTO needs to take into account if they are not to prejudice some of the development aid of ourselves and our European partners.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that he answers in this House for the whole Government, not just for one particular department, and that he should, therefore, give a rather more full answer to his noble friend Lord Judd?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that it is the tradition of the House that, as far as possible, supplementary questions are limited to the scope of the original Question. Certainly, I have no problem whatever in defending the total record of this Government. However, when a Question is tabled, the House deserves to have an Answer which relates primarily to it. I am not condemning my noble friend, or anyone else, for trying to broaden the discussion, but that is the tradition and I shall stick to it.

Fabian Society Booklet
3 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford Viscount Chelmsford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view on the Fabian Society publication Information Age: Delivering the Blair Revolution, and in particular on its six recommendations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a former chairman of the Fabian Society, I thank the noble Viscount for the publicity that he gives to its excellent publications.
The Government welcome this Fabian Society paper as an interesting contribution to debate on simpler, better government. The forthcoming Better Government White Paper of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will set out the Government's vision for public services. It will address many of the areas on which the Fabian booklet made recommendations: electronic service delivery; information for users; closer working between departments (including the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency); partnership between central and local government; and co-ordination between inspectors.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I, too, welcome the report. Can the Minister say whether the Government will give priority to achieving the savings identified in the report through the re-engineering of tasks performed by the two groups of central and local government departments referred to therein? That will ensure that the work is done once only and not duplicated by each department. It will also enable the citizen to obtain a single point of entry for advice and information and mean that he will not need to visit up to 11 different departments as the report alleges.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his supplementary question, the noble Viscount correctly identified the thrust of the work that the Government are already doing. In particular, he referred to central and local partnership. As part of the Deputy Prime Minister's central-local partnership initiative, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has set up a ministerial group to develop a framework to encourage innovative pilot initiatives to improve services at the local level, through different parts of government working together.
As regards the noble Viscount's question about electronic delivery, he may have noticed yesterday's announcement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding the first paperless form, which is to be applied to those wishing to register as self-employed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the Government are so keen on delivering information electronically. will they consider the case of the Prison Service, which does not have a web page of its own? This created the greatest difficulties when it was asked to provide information for the penal lexicon (a web page which did provide information about the Prison Service). It declines to give

11
any contribution to those people who are carrying out a public service by not making such information available on its own web page.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can confirm what the noble Lord said about the Government's determination to make information available electronically. The Prime Minister has made a tough commitment that, within five years, 25 per cent. of communication between government and citizens will be available electronically. I should point out that the Prison Service is included in that project, although I am not aware of the prison lexicon to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that the Fabian Society originally stood for introducing socialism and state control steadily and not hastily, can the Minister tell the House what is the present Government's attitude towards Fabian principles? Indeed, can the noble Lord say whether the Prime Minister is a Fabian?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the Prime Minister is a Fabian. I should remind the noble Lord that the motto of the Fabian Society, in the words of Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator, has always been:
"When 1 strike, 1 strike hard".
As far as concerns improving government relations with the citizen, I think that now is the time to strike hard.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a recent statutory instrument laid on behalf of the Department for Education and Employment for which information on what is going on in schools, especially in terms of school numbers, and so on, is demanded both in three written copies and on a computer disk? Does that not show that the Government do not strictly have the courage of their own convictions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware of the case to which the noble Lord refers. I shall inform myself in that respect and then inform the noble Lord of the conclusions that I draw.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as a fellow Fabian, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the philosophy behind the report is not just the efficiency of government services but also the impact upon the citizen? Is it not important that recipients of government services—for example, those on benefits—should be beneficiaries of the new technology, rather than being bypassed or disadvantaged by it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government cannot neglect the fact that £38 billion a year is spent on the delivery of their services. Therefore, the cash nexus cannot be very far from our minds. However, my noble friend is right to say that the purpose of the
12
exercise is not only to save money but also to improve the quality of services and to improve the quality of communication from the citizen to government.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for the fact that, some six long months after first having asked, I have now received my first electronic answer to a Written Question tabled in this House? I am most grateful. Will the noble Lord address himself in particular to the fourth of the requests made by the Fabian Society; namely, to introduce a local help line for people to enable them to find out what is going on in their area and receive answers from their councillors and MPs? Does the noble Lord support that aim, and does he envisage that it will involve a greater provision of offices and support to MPs in their local areas?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that it has taken so long for the noble Lord to receive electronic responses. For a number of months now I have been signing Written Questions contained in a folder to which a diskette has been attached. I thought we could have beaten the timescale that we have in fact achieved.
However, in response to the noble Lord's final question, I would not like it thought that local authorities are not already doing what is recommended by the Fabian pamphlet. Many local authorities already operate help lines or one-stop shops, and information technology is already making it possible for them to integrate advice from local and central government, and from the voluntary and private sector. We are encouraging single-entry points to which all those parts of the broad spectrum of government will contribute.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the White Paper regarding the new National Health Service.
I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement, following the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen, should be confined to,
"brief comments and questions for clarification".
There is a mandatory limit of 20 minutes from the end of the Minster's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen.

Supreme Court (Offices) Bill
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in

13
Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [The Commission]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 6, leave out from ("established") to ("Northern") in line 7 and insert ("a body to be known as the Parades Commission for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and those grouped with it serve to remove Clause 3 of the Bill, which covers the Parades Commission's extended remit, and make the necessary consequential changes. The Government's decision to remove Clause 3 follows extensive discussion in this House at all stages, and the emergence of a clear cross-party consensus that the clause as drafted would not have the desired effect. I believe this decision demonstrates how right the Government were to decide to make this legislation through a Bill rather than Order in Council, an option which was open to us. I have been most grateful for the vigorous debate surrounding this clause, and am now convinced that removing it is in everyone's best interest.
But equally, I have been heartened by the recognition from all sides of this House that the Bill needs to be even-handed and be seen to be even-handed. A number of other amendments tabled today will, I believe, go some way towards reassuring people on this account. But it is highly important that people do not see removal of this clause as leaving us with a Bill which is straightforwardly anti-parading and targeted to the culture of one particular part of the community. We shall continue to consider carefully all suggestions as to how our commitment to implement the findings of the North Report can be carried out in a balanced and even-handed way. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this House is often described as a revising Chamber. We have certainly revised this Bill, or at least we shall have done so by the end of the afternoon. The face of the Bill, as it is now intended to go to another place, is substantially changed. The government amendments to be moved today, all of which, including this first batch, have my support, strike out one of the main clauses, Clause 3, entirely, rewrite six of the other 18 clauses and two of the three schedules, and alter both the Short and Long Titles. That is the extent of the revision. There are some outstanding matters which we shall discuss later in our deliberations.
As regards Clause 3, the Bill came to us with the power for the commission to consider all kinds of other outdoor expressions of cultural identity, including
14
church services and painted gable ends, although not offensive sporting occasions. Now the Bill deals only with processions such as parades and protests. The Bill came to us—as it seemed to many of us—as an anti-parades Bill. However, after all these amendments, it will leave us as a parades enabling Bill, which is what I think it should be.
First, the Secretary of State's powers to ban parades or protests are not now to be easier to invoke, as the original Bill suggested. Secondly, the penalties for parade organisers when a parade goes wrong are not now—as they were originally—to be four times the maximum penalties for those who set out to break up parades. Thirdly, the same penalties will also be available for organisers of or participants in an illegal parade held without notice as are available for the organisers of or participants in a legal parade which goes wrong in some way.
The Government are to use again the old definition of processions, which includes car-borne processions or vehicle processions. The original wording of the Bill was changed from the present law and did not seem to provide for that. The Government have accepted the recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation on the handling of changes to the code of conduct, the procedural rules and the guidelines. That is a complete raft of changes which alter the whole effect of the Bill. Of course we know that some people both north and south of the Border wanted an anti-parades Bill—a Bill which they could exploit as widely as possible. This House, in the amendments we are about to make, will deny them that. This Bill is now fairer, more balanced and much more likely to prove workable, effective and acceptable to everyone of good will.
It is also worth drawing your Lordships' attention to the fact that these revisions have been achieved by different parties acting together and by distinguished Cross-Benchers. I add for the record that the changes have been pressed on the Government by both life and hereditary Peers within this House. The Government were wise to accept the suggestions that have been made. The Minister gave in with good grace and was clearly effective in arguing the case that was put in your Lordships' House with his colleagues in the department. I am therefore delighted to accept all the amendments which the Government will propose this afternoon.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the Government deserve double congratulations. First, they have achieved the remarkable feat of having united all quarters of the House in opposition to Clause 3, with which this bundle of amendments deals. To unite your Lordships' House—albeit against the clause—is no mean feat. The Government should also be proud that they had the grace to withdraw the clause and thus to improve the Bill when faced with the fact that the clause does not enhance the Bill and might well damage the ability of the Parades Commission to establish itself as a useful way of managing the parades process in the public interest. I use the word "manage" rather than "enable". I say that with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cope.

15
As regards this group of amendments, and in particular Clause 3, I wish to pay tribute from these Benches to my noble friend Lord Alderdice who in the Committee stage adopted a leadership role which assembled this motley coalition of Cross-Benchers—as has been said—the heavy and weighty guns of the Opposition Front Bench and other quarters of the House against the Government. I believe that it was largely his intellectual leadership which has led us to the point of identifying that the Bill is better without Clause 3.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I shall support the amendments before us this afternoon. However, at the end of the day, the Parades Commission will have a difficult job next spring. Its task next spring will coincide with the crucial stage of the peace process, running up to the Government's hoped for deadline of 1st May to arrive at a settlement of the difficult and contentious issues in Northern Ireland. It is extremely important that all people of good will, both in your Lordships' House and, much more importantly, in Northern Ireland itself, now try to give the Parades Commission a fair wind in this agonizingly difficult task. It will not be any easier for that body than it has been for successive governments to manage this process. I offer Mr. Alistair Graham and his colleagues best wishes in that task.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, whatever feelings one might have about the Bill and the central objectives—some of us cannot be terribly optimistic—nevertheless it would be churlish not to say that we greatly appreciate the patience and the diligence of the Minister and the effectiveness with which he must have put forward our ideas embodied in these amendments when dealing with various arms of government. It is certainly my intention to reward the Minister in a small way by supporting the amendments which he will move.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for all the work he has done thus far in the passage of this piece of legislation. First, we ought to be grateful to the Government that they wisely chose to carry this measure through as a Bill rather than as an Order in Council. So much of Northern Ireland's legislation is tackled through Orders in Council. This measure was presented as a Bill in order that it could be fully and properly considered. Secondly, it was also a wise decision to conduct the Committee stage in the Moses Room. The atmosphere in the Committee stage was most conducive to discussion not only as regards the environment of the committee but also the participation of all noble Lords who gave considerable time and thought to the measure.
Much thoughtful work was done on all sides. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who participated in a thoughtful, constructive, and at times good humoured way—something that is not often a characteristic when dealing with our problems in Northern Ireland. Of the contributions from Government, the Opposition, the Cross-Benches and colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party, the noble Lord, Lord Eames, made a striking, moving and extremely significant contribution on Clause 3.
16
I believe that it was a wise decision for the Government to bring the Bill to your Lordships' House first rather than to another place. My experience of much esteemed friends and colleagues in another place indicates that there is a tendency to expand the contentiousness of such matters and such a course might have made it difficult to achieve the consensus and thoughtful and reflective material that has resulted. The Government will be rewarded by taking a better piece of legislation to another place and, it is to be hoped, will find that it has a reasonably smooth passage there.
I have found that there is appreciation in Northern Ireland that the legislation passing through is rather better than when it came to us. It does credit to all of us—the Government, and your Lordships' House. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham for his kind words on the small part that I played. I found it a most fruitful piece of work. I think that the people of Northern Ireland will be grateful to us. I only hope that the co-operativeness that was obvious in your Lordships' House will infect other forums in which I operate where we are struggling with the matter of talks and finding a resolution. If that infection from your Lordships' House could travel, goodness knows what the new year might bring for us there. I and my colleagues will support the amendments that the Minister puts forward.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am enormously grateful for all those comments, for the words of support, and for the welcome that the House has given to the procedure that we followed, both by having a Bill on the subject, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, by using the Grand Committee procedure for the Committee stage in the Moses Room. That was the result of discussions through the usual channels. I agree with the noble Lord that it led to an informed, interesting, balanced, reasonable, good natured and helpful Committee stage. I think that the Bill has become all the better because of the atmosphere and the way in which we were able to debate in the Moses Room. It may well influence us when looking at future Committee stages, given the success of this one. But I must not prejudge what my noble friend the Chief Whip will wish to do as regards future Bills. I am most grateful for the support expressed, and for the support for this set of amendments which delete Clause 3. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Functions of the Commission in relation to other expressions of cultural identity]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 3.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Code of Conduct]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert ("or a counter-demonstration to a public procession").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 11 are grouped together. Amendment No. 3 would mean that the Parades Commission not only has to draw up a code of conduct for those organising and

17
participating in parades but also for those protesting against a legal parade. When I argued the point at Report stage, the Minister said that the point would be considered further; and that the results of the further consideration would be dealt with in another place. I entirely accept that. I advance the amendment today only to draw attention to the North committee's view on the matter.
During Report stage, the Minister said at column 1195 that the North Report did not believe that it would be appropriate for the commission to have such a code dealing with protesters. I pointed out at the time that I believed that that was not an accurate statement of the position. The Minister may have confused the position with the subsequent recommendations in Chapter 13, paragraph 55 of the North Report which recommends that the police consider a code of conduct for open air meetings. The Parades Commission has nothing to do with those. In fact at Chapter 13, paragraph 40 of the North Report recommends that the commission's code of conduct should cover protesters. It sets out in some detail what might be in that part of the code. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will take this clear recommendation of the North Report into account in discussing the matter before reporting their conclusions in another place.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 11 deal with a separate point. They give the Secretary of State the power to ban a counter demonstration. We sought to improve the wording of our amendments between Report stage and Third Reading. I do not think it fanciful to suppose that there may be occasions where counter-demonstrations are expected and the Secretary of State may take the view that the procession should take place, that re-routing the procession is not possible and that the counter-demonstration should be banned. As I understand the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State can only ban the whole procession, thus removing the cause of the counter-demonstration and indirectly banning that. But by doing so he gives way to the protesters themselves.
I hope that between now and consideration of the Bill in another place that possibility will be considered so that the Bill can be amended along the lines of Amendment No. 11 in particular, but also of Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I believe that there is a strong case for accepting this modest amendment in line with the recommendation of the North Report in particular to deal with the situation which will arise when the date and details of a traditional procession will be known many months in advance. A protest group perhaps organised by a military body—such groups are nearly always organised by such bodies—launches notice of a counter-demonstration, usually with no justification whatever except to create trouble. Clause 4 requires the commission to issue a code of conduct regulating the conduct of organisers of a public procession, but inadvertently your Lordships are denying the commission the power to act in a similar role with
18
regard to organisers of a protest demonstration designed, as the Bill states in another clause, to break up a legal procession.
The Minister stressed the need for balance between sections of the Northern Ireland community. In line with the generosity he showed earlier, and his capacity to influence his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, I hope that he will recognise the need for balance between legal behaviour and illegal activities.
Lord Monson: My Lords, Clause 3, which we have just consigned to oblivion, was originally conceived by the Government as a means of achieving balance between what we must now call the traditions. Subsequently, it was realised by almost everyone that Clause 3 went too far and, moreover, that it might well lead to all kinds of unintended consequences. Accordingly, it has rightly been deleted from the Bill. However, we are still faced with a need to achieve balance between the traditions. This group of amendments goes some way towards achieving that end.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should like to deal separately with Amendment No. 3 and Amendments Nos. 5 and 11. They deal with substantially different points, although I appreciate that at first sight they seem to cover the same issue.
In regard to Amendment No. 3, the point at issue has already been discussed at both Committee and Report stages. As I said on Report, the Government feel that further consideration of this point would be more appropriate in the other place. However, I wish to take the opportunity of clarifying a point that the noble Lord made at Report stage, on which he has subsequently tabled a Parliamentary Question and to which he referred in his comments a few moments ago.
I accept that there is a certain amount of ambiguity about the North Report's recommendations on the code of conduct and counter-demonstrations. This Bill, which implements the report's recommendations, would treat a counter-demonstration as an "open-air public meeting". It would therefore fall to be regulated by the police under the public order order. The North Report recommended that the police,
"give serious consideration to preparing a Code of Conduct in relation to such meetings similar to that prepared for parades by the Parades Commission".
At the same time, however, the report recommended that the commission have ownership of a code of conduct covering the behaviour both of participants and protesters. That is slightly curious, particularly as the form the code of conduct is recommended to take clearly covers matters such as the organisation of a parade and behaviour on it, which are subjects on which the police rather than the Parades Commission can impose conditions. Moreover, while the North Report makes clear that past breaches of the code of conduct can be taken into account in future determinations on contested parades, it is hard to identify a corresponding sanction which could apply to counter-demonstrators.

19
As I mentioned earlier, the Government believe it would be more appropriate to deal with this issue when the Bill goes back to another place. The police and the commission will have their own views, and I do not believe we want to introduce hasty amendments at this stage. I would be grateful, therefore, if this amendment could be withdrawn, and we will report back in the other place as to our conclusions on this matter.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 11 deal with the power of the Secretary of State to ban processions, whereas Amendment No. 3 deals with the power of the Parades Commission to determine matters relating to processions, such as the route. As I made clear in Committee and on Report, we are content that the Secretary of State already has sufficient powers to deal with the disorder, disruption etc. resulting from counter-demonstrations. Those powers are contained in the public order order, as amended by Schedule 3 to this Bill.
The amendments introduced on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would not have had the effect that he sought. The amendments tabled for debate today are, however, technically defective in a different way from those that he introduced on Report. I am sorry to have to say that; I remember, when in Opposition, I was frequently stung by being told that my amendments, both in this House and the other place, were technically defective. However, that is the truth, and I hope that the noble Lord will accept it.
The first problem with these amendments lies in the concept of a "counter-procession". That is nowhere defined in legislation. Indeed, a counter-procession is presumably simply a public procession. If local residents or anyone else sought to oppose a public procession by holding another one in protest, that "counter-procession" would itself fall to be regulated by the commission and could be banned by the Secretary of State, if necessary using her powers under Clause 11 as currently drafted.
On the assumption that this amendment is intended to cover counter-demonstrations rather than counter-processions, however, the noble Lord's amendments would still not have the desired effect. The amendment does not make clear that the revised Clause 11 is intended to cover both public processions and protesters to it. But unlike the amendments laid at Report stage, the factors which the Secretary of State must take into account have not this time been amended. That would mean that the Secretary of State could theoretically permit a public procession to go ahead but ban a counter-demonstration, only taking into account the likely disorder or disruption which the original procession might cause, rather than disorder or disruption as a result of the counter-demonstration which is being banned. That may seem perverse, but it is an inevitable consequence of the amendment as drafted, because, as it stands, the Secretary of State has no power to consider the likely effect of the counter-demonstration in deciding whether to ban it. I therefore urge noble Lords to reject this amendment.
20
Indeed, I should welcome a comment from the noble Lord, Lord Cope, as to his intentions regarding Amendments Nos. 5 and 11. As I said, the fact that counter-demonstrations are not covered in this clause is by no means a sign that the Government do not believe they can be just as much a source of trouble as the original procession. Rather, the Secretary of State has equal powers to deal with both the original procession and the counter-demonstration, but those powers simply happen to be set out in different places in the legislation.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 3, I am grateful for the Minister's comments. If he refers to paragraph 13.42 of the North Report, which sets out the possible elements in a code of conduct for parades, he will find that Part III sets out quite clearly suggestions as to what might be included in a code of conduct in relation to what is described as,
"General behaviour for anyone participating in lawful protest against a parade".
That is what the amendment seeks. However, I am happy to leave the matter to be settled after further consideration, and for it to be dealt with in another place.
So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 5 and 11, I assure the Minister and the House that I have been far too long involved in parliamentary matters to have any pride in my draftsmanship. I understand from the Minister's remarks that the amendment does not achieve my intention. I shall therefore not move Amendments Nos. 5 and 11, but will leave others to consider the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 3.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [The Commission's powers to impose conditions on public processions]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert ("on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I mentioned at Report stage, the Government acknowledge that the sentences in the current Bill are somewhat anomalous. Having a stricter maximum sentence for those defying a condition of the Parades Commission or participating in a banned procession than for those who seek to break up a lawful procession (which would of course itself constitute defiance of Parades Commission's determination) could strengthen the concerns of those who fear that this Bill is directed exclusively at one side of the community. Although the provisions of the Bill merely replicate provisions of existing legislation, we recognise the need for change.
We have been faced with a difficult choice, one shared by noble Lords who at different times have put down amendments, some proposing the one course, others the opposite. Nobody should be under the illusion that the offences in these clauses are not serious ones. The authorities are absolutely determined to maintain the rule of law and to see that decisions of the Parades Commission are not defied. But, equally, the choice lay between levelling up sentences under the Bill or

21
levelling them down. This Government do not believe that the rule of law is necessarily best maintained by the threat of draconian penalties. Rather, we want to see even-handed and effective enforcement of the law. And levelling sentences in the Bill up to a maximum two years would seem disproportionate in the case of offences which need not involve violence or even the threat of violence. In addition, in the past the authorities have found the magistrates' court system adequate to deal with offences under the order, and we are confident that the same will apply in the future.
We believe that the structures established under this Bill will put the whole question of parades on a new, even-handed, transparent and, it is to be hoped, broadly acceptable basis. We do not see coercive penalties as the key for making the new structures work; rather the fostering of local agreement wherever possible and the ability for the first time to make determinations on contested parades on a fair and balanced basis. We therefore commend these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are grateful to the Government for moving this amendment, and we support it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we are obviously living in a time of great compassion, when a convicted mass murderer who has spent no more than 10 years or thereabouts in prison is to be released on 10 days' home leave at Christmas. In the light of that, it would be going against the grain to permit the courts to impose a sentence of as much as two years on someone merely for parading without permission. I therefore support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Secretary of State's powers to prohibit public processions]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 35, after ("any") insert ("serious").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am happy to introduce this set of amendments which seek to address the perception in some quarters that the Secretary of State's banning power in Clause 11 would effectively make parades easier to ban. I sought to explain in some detail at Report stage why we did not believe that that was a correct interpretation of the existing draft. We are, however, acutely aware that in such a sensitive area perception can be as important as reality. We are therefore happy to propose drafting which provides double reassurance that the banning power will not be used except in the most exceptional circumstances.
The Secretary of State will only be able to take into account disorder, disruption, and so forth, if they are themselves serious. But even that will not be enough, unlike in the existing public order order. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to be convinced that there is a danger of serious disorder, disruption, and so forth. He or she must also believe that, in all the circumstances, banning a parade would be necessary in the public
22
interest. In European Convention terms, this would mean demonstrating that the step of taking a ban was both necessary and proportionate.
I also draw your Lordships' attention in this context to the wording in subsections (2)(e) and (3)(e) of Clause 11. These require the Secretary of State to take into account the extent of the powers exercisable under earlier subsections in the clause. This drafting looks technical, but it is important. In practice, it amounts to a further assurance that the Secretary of State will only use her powers in circumstances where it is proportionate. The banning power is now structured into a power to ban individual parades, a power to ban classes of parades and a power to ban all parades. As the power becomes broader, the Secretary of State will need to demonstrate both that the decision to use it is necessary, taking into account the seriousness of the disorder, and also that using the broader power is proportionate; that is, that using less draconian powers under this clause would not have been enough to deal with the problem identified.
With the amendments I have put down today, and the other changes in the drafting which I have already indicated, I believe that the banning power in the Bill provides greater reassurance than the existing banning power in the Public Order order to those who fear that these are too sweeping powers to curtail what is universally regarded as an important civil right. I can only repeat that the banning power has only been used in exceptional circumstances in the past, and that will remain the case in future. I therefore urge your Lordships to accept these amendments.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he clarify whether the Government are now satisfied that, with the insertion of the words "serious" and "undue" in these subsections to define exceptional circumstances, the legislation is now on all fours with the European Convention in terms of proportionality?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the answer to that question will be interesting; but, assuming that it is satisfactory, I think that the Government have been wise to accept the suggestions we made at an earlier stage, and I support the amendments.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. As regards the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, it is our understanding that we shall not be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights with these amendments and that the Secretary of State's other powers will ensure that any decisions are properly proportionate. I believe that the amendments will clarify any misunderstandings that there may have been about the way in which the Secretary of State would use her powers. I hope that the amendments will send out the right message. I can assure the noble Lord that we have taken the European Convention points into account.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 10:
Page 6, line 35, after ("or") insert ("serious").
Page 6, line 37, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 6, line 39, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 6, line 41, after ("any") insert ("undue").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 22:
Page 7, line 3, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 3, after ("or") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 6, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 8, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 10, after ("any") insert ("undue").
Page 7, line 18, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 18. after ("or") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 20, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 22, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7. line 24, after ("any") insert ("undue").
Page 8, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert ("on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 10. line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("( ) A statutory instrument containing any regulations under this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
( ) A statutory instrument containing—
(a) an order under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 made without a draft having been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament; or
(b) an order under section 7(5)(b) or 12(1) or paragraph 2(2) or 12(6) of Schedule I,
shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment might look somewhat indigestible on first sight but its practical effect is quite simple. It takes up the very useful suggestion made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on the procedures to be adopted for subsequent amendments to the code of conduct, guidelines and procedural rules. In the Bill as it stands, the first issuing of these documents will be approved under affirmative resolution procedure. Subsequent amendments, however, would be by the negative resolution procedure. The committee accepted that the negative resolution procedure was an acceptable route for subsequent revisions to the statutory documents, while calling on members of both Houses to be aware of proposed changes and to pray against them if they considered that they required fullest parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee also suggested,
24
however, that the Government consider the option of having a choice of either the affirmative or negative procedure.
That has up till now been a fairly unusual approach, mainly associated with European legislation; but we believe it is a helpful suggestion, and highly appropriate for this Bill. We do not believe it will be a good use of parliamentary time to require a debate on any revision of, say, the commission's procedural rules when these may be entirely technical; but, equally, we accept that there is at least a potential of fairly substantial changes to the guidelines, for example.
Your Lordships may ask how the Government will decide which option to use. I cannot, of course, set out any fixed rules, but I can assure your Lordships that each case will be considered carefully on its merits. Our commitment to the fullest possible scrutiny has been demonstrated by our decision to use a Bill procedure rather than an Order in Council, and we shall not be seeking to smuggle major changes through without appropriate scrutiny. Depending on what we perceive to be the gravity and significance of the changes, we shall decide which procedure is appropriate. And, of course, if any noble Lord or Member of the other place believes the changes are significant and should require a debate and a vote, it is open to them to pray against an order which has been laid by the negative resolution procedure.
I believe that this is a pragmatic and helpful amendment, and I urge acceptance of it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the whole of today's proceedings have demonstrated the wisdom of the Government in bringing forward these proposals as a Bill rather than as an order, as the Minister said. I am grateful to the Minister for proposing this amendment, which we culled from the Select Committee and advanced to him earlier.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 10, line 38, leave out ("Commission established by section 1") and insert ("Parades Commission for Northern Ireland").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 11, line 13, at end insert (", whether or not involving the use of vehicles or other conveyances").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am happy to introduce this amendment, which I think largely speaks for itself. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has discussed on several occasions the disturbance which politically inspired processions or cavalcades of motor vehicles can cause. Such vehicle processions have been covered by legislation up till now and I believe that it is important that they should continue to be so covered. I accept that the present drafting of the Bill does not make that sufficiently clear and I believe that this

25
amendment, which restores the wording of the 1987 public order order, does what is necessary to provide that reassurance.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the Minister for the careful and sympathetic attention that he has given to this problem. I know that his decision will be welcomed throughout the community in Northern Ireland, with the exception of certain evil-doers, who are not the main concern of your Lordships.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Short title, commencement, transitional provision and extent]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 11. line 23, leave out ("etc.").
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("and to section 3(5)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall take Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions relating to code of conduct, procedural rules and guidelines]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 15, line 4, leave out paragraph 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 34:
Page 15, line 29, leave out ("etc.").
Page 15. leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—("The Parades Commission for Northern Ireland.".").
Page 15, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—(""The Parades Commission for Northern Ireland."."). Page 15, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) In Article 4(6) for the words from "liable" to the end there shall be substituted the words "liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a tine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.".").
Page 16, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) In Article 5(6) for the words from "liable" to the end there shall be substituted the words "liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.".").
Line 3, leave out from ("of') to end of line 4 and insert ("the Parades Commission for").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Perhaps I can briefly say a word of thanks to all noble Lords who contributed to the discussions at all stages of this Bill, both in the Moses Room, at Report stage and again today. We have demonstrated that the procedure adopted by the Government to introduce a full Bill to deal with this difficult and vexed issue was fully justified in the event. We have made the Bill a better Bill on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.
26
I am grateful for the good tempered and positive way in which noble Lords responded to the issues. They are extremely difficult issues, as we saw last year and in previous years during the marching season. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will see this as a positive move forward; that they will accept that the Parades Commission is an even-handed body which will do a useful job in conciliation and in making determinations as necessary. I hope that we shall have better marching seasons in the coming years than in the past years as a result of the Bill.
I end on the note I mentioned earlier; that is, that 12th July is a momentous day in the marching season. It is also the day of the World Cup Final and I hope that that also sends a positive message to the people of Northern Ireland.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

The New NHS
3.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"Today I am proud to announce the publication of our proposals to renew and modernise the National Health Service. These are set out in our White Paper, The New NHS.
"This White Paper is a turning point for the NHS, the 1 million staff who work in it and all of us who use it. This Government were elected to save the health service. We were also elected to change it for the better. We want to give it a new lease of life. Today we outline a 10-year programme of modernisation which guarantees that the NHS gets better each year—delivering quicker higher quality services for patients. The pace of change will be measured, but each year will bring new and visible improvements. Our plans will give our country a modern and dependable health service that is once again the envy of the world.
"We will make a start straight away. This White Paper abolishes the wasteful and bureaucratic competitive internal market introduced by the Tories. It sets out how services will respond more readily to patient needs and describes new targets against which performance will be judged. Doctors and nurses will be in the driving seat. It spells out a whole new approach that we have called 'integrated care'. It will break down the Berlin Wall between health and social care so that patients get swift access to care and treatment rather than being passed from pillar to post.
"The changes we are outlining today will put quality, fairness and efficiency at the heart of the National Health Service. Quality will give patients a guarantee of excellence wherever they live. Standards will be raised right across the country. Fairness will

27
give patients an NHS that is there for them when they need it, where they need it, regardless of their ability to pay—a one nation NHS. Efficiency will deliver more money for patient care. There will be a relentless drive to cut out waste and unnecessary bureaucracy.
"We will abolish the internal market because it has failed. It has failed to deliver quality of care, fairness for patients or efficient services. It set doctor against doctor; hospital against hospital. Its business culture has been at odds with the ethos of the NHS and those who work within it. Patients want an NHS where staff can work together to provide better services, rather than having to compete against each other.
"When I became Secretary of State I promised that we would listen to the people in the front line—the nurses and doctors, midwives and other professionals, and all the staff in the National Health Service. We have kept that promise. We have listened. That is why our proposals go with the grain. We are building on what has worked. But we are discarding what has failed. For us what counts is what works. There will be no return to the command and control structures of the 1970s. Nor will there be a continuation of the divisive fragmentation of the 1990s. Instead there will be a third way—a new model for a new century.
"We will keep the separation between planning and providing services. But we will end competition and replace it with a new statutory duty of partnership so that local health services pull together rather than pull apart. We will end fundholding and replace it with primary care groups in each area putting doctors and nurses in charge of shaping services for all patients. We will end the culture of secrecy and commercialisation and replace it with a new duty of openness that will share best practice for the benefit of all patients. We will end short-term contracts, cost per case contracts and extra contractual referrals and replace them with long-term agreements that offer stability and focus on quality. Our detailed proposals for doing all this are set out in the 81 pages of the White Paper.
"We will set up primary care groups involving family doctors and community nurses in every area. They will be responsible for commissioning services for their local communities and will account to health authorities for their activities. GPs and community nurses will have a choice about the form their primary care group takes. For example, they will have the power to become freestanding primary care trusts, able to run community health services, including community hospitals. They will have a single unified budget, no part of which will be capped. So, the money will always be there to guarantee that patients get the medicine they need, when they need it. The new unified budget will give GPs maximum choice over how patients' needs are met. All primary care groups will work closely with social services to provide properly integrated care.
"For the first time, NHS trusts will have statutory obligations to co-operate with other parts of the NHS and to meet quality standards. They will remain
28
responsible for treatment and care. Hospital doctors will have a greater say in shaping local services for patients.
"Health authorities will, over time, relinquish most of their commissioning responsibilities. The proposals will cut the number of commissioning bodies from around 4,000 to about 500. They will be leaner bodies with stronger powers. They will draw up long-term programmes for improving the health of their area in consultation with local NHS trusts and primary care groups, but also with local authorities, voluntary bodies and education and research institutions. These health improvement programmes will provide the broad framework for local action to improve general health and health services.
"All of us who use the NHS deserve a guarantee of excellence. There will be new national action to extend quality and efficiency into every part of the NHS, backed by a new performance framework which measures what counts for patients.
"There will be a new national institute for clinical excellence to give a strong lead on clinical cost-effectiveness, drawing up new guidelines from the latest scientific evidence. There will be new national service frameworks that will guarantee consistent access to services and quality of care for all patients. They will draw on the best evidence available, to set out the best ways of providing particular services. To underpin this drive for quality, there will be a new commission for health improvement to spread best practice and tackle shortcomings.
"Patients will also have a guarantee that public money is being used to best effect. NHS trusts will no longer be competing. But they will be comparing. Comparison, not competition, will drive efficiency. A national schedule of comparative costs of treating different conditions will be drawn up and each NHS trust will be judged against it. Management costs will be capped. There will be clear incentives and sanctions to help drive improvements in performance at every level. Trust performance will be benchmarked for both quality and efficiency and the results will be made public.
"Over the lifetime of this Parliament, these changes will shift an extra £1 billion from bureaucracy into frontline patient services. This will be on top of the extra £1.5 billion which the Chancellor has made available for the NHS over this year and next. And we will continue to raise spending on the health service in real terms every year.
"These changes will give patients a modern and dependable health service which makes the best use of developments in modern medicine and information technology to offer readily available and high quality services. We have already promised to cut waiting lists. We will have done so by the end of this Parliament.
"Today I want to announce three new milestones by which we will chart our progress towards the new NHS. At home, everyone will be able to contact NHS Direct, a new 24-hour telephone advice line staffed

29
by nurses. Three pilot care and advice helplines will begin in March next year. By the year 2000, the whole country will he covered.
"At community level, patients will benefit from quicker test results, up-to-date specialist advice in the doctor's surgery and on-line booking of out-patients appointments by connecting every family doctor to NHSnet—the NHS's own information superhighway. We will have demonstration sites up and running by next year. By 2002, these services will be available to GPs throughout the country.
"In hospital, everyone with suspected cancer will be guaranteed a specialist appointment within two weeks of their GP deciding they need to be seen urgently. This will start for everyone with suspected breast cancer in 1999 and be extended to all other cases of suspected cancer by the year 2000.
"We have great ambitions for the National Health Service. We will take on those who say the NHS has had its day and all we can do is preside over its decline. We will work with the million people who make the NHS so special to turn it into a modern and dependable service for the coming century. We know that doctors and nurses and all the staff of the NHS wish to rid themselves of the unfairness and inefficiency of the current system. That is our ambition too. It is what they want and what the people of this country want.
"Next year the health service celebrates its 50th birthday. A Labour government founded the NHS and this Labour Government are now modernising the NHS to prepare it for the challenges of the next 50 years—a new National Health Service drawing on new technology, new drugs, new quality standards and new ways of working; a new National Health Service based on its timeless principles that the best health services should be available to all; the best for all, quality and equality, for the new century."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.3 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is a Statement which has been long anticipated and which, now that we have heard it, is undoubtedly of fundamental significance for the future of the NHS. Indeed, so multi-faceted are the changes now adumbrated that it is difficult for me to give a full or considered response from these Benches today. For that reason, until the details and implications of what is proposed have been carefully studied, my reaction to the Statement must inevitably be a somewhat guarded one.
I can, however, congratulate the Government on their boldness. I do not doubt that Ministers are seeking in their own way to improve the health service. That is laudable. What some may doubt, however, having listened this afternoon, is whether the course they have charted will remotely be able to deliver the improvements they seek. My instant reaction to the proposals is that they have a great deal of sound and
30
fury about them, but the central question always has to be: will they deliver better care more efficiently to patients?
The proposition put before us is of a health service in decline and disarray. I cannot accept that for one second. Surely to goodness, any dispassionate analysis must acknowledge one truth obvious to all of us who depend for our well-being on the NHS; namely, the admirable and robust ability of the health service over many years—but particularly over recent years—to meet the ever-increasing demands placed upon it. It has succeeded in doing so triumphantly, thanks to the dedication and professionalism of those who work for it. But, in the same breath, let us also acknowledge the enabling part played by government. Spending on the NHS has risen by 74 per cent. in real terms in England since 1979 and over 80 per cent. more NHS treatments per year are carried out now compared with 1978. Those figures do not speak of decline.
As the Government have recognised, there will always be pressure for more money and greater efficiency. The pressures felt by the NHS are nothing new. Ever since 1948 it has had to contend with a growing demand for treatment, an ageing population and the relentlessly rising cost of medical technology. For any government to respond to those challenges, it is necessary to demonstrate not only a commitment to a proper level of resources but also some flair and innovation so as to ensure that those resources are efficiently directed. Those are the two tests on which the Government will be held to account at the next general election.
We have heard much in the Statement about the alleged inadequacies of the previous government's health service reforms. I am saddened that Labour, now that it is in office, cannot be fair minded enough to give credit where credit is due. Those reforms, introducing as they did the distinction between purchaser and provider, better accountability to patients and devolved budgets to fund-holding GPs and trusts, were a vitally necessary set of changes which have been of huge benefit to the quantity and quality of health care delivered by the NHS since 1991. Of course there have been difficulties in effecting those changes. It would be extraordinary if there had not been. Of course we all want to minimise unnecessary bureaucracy, and large slices were indeed eliminated by the previous government. But those, like the Minister, who condemn the internal market should reflect on the transformation that that market has brought about in waiting times, in the information available to patients and in the quantity and quality of treatment delivered. Those are real bench-marks of success and of value for money.
The Statement says that NHS staff want to be rid of the current system. I have yet to come across a GP fund-holding practice which regrets its decision to adopt fund-holding status. There is no doubt whatever that fund-holding has injected new life into the NHS from top to bottom. Yet here we are with an announcement which heralds the end of the internal market and the end of fund-holding as we currently understand the term. In their place we find the proposal that primary care groups

31
should take responsibility for a much greater part of the NHS budget and to a large degree take over the role of health authorities.
If the object of these changes is to open the way to greater efficiencies, I feel bound to ask the Minister how they will do so. The proposals appear to amount to an extension of fund-holding. But we are told that they do not amount to fund-holding. So what are the mechanisms, in the absence of the internal market, which will bear down on waiting lists, conduce to better care and ensure better value for money? It is not clear from the Statement whether the distinction between purchaser and provider is to be retained. Will it be; and if it is, how will it manifest itself? But more than that, how are GPs supposed to be equipped for this new role? To run a budget covering hospital and primary care, and perhaps some areas of social services as well, will require management skills and large amounts of management time.
We are told that the Government are keen to get rid of bureaucracy. But how will these arrangements avoid yet another form of bureaucracy, multiplied hundreds of times across all the GP practices or primary care groups in the country? It is effectively another layer of administration in the NHS.
In moving away from fund-holding, doctors are bound to wonder how their ability to take decisions will be circumscribed by the needs of other doctors in other practices, and to wonder, too, what will happen when there is a direct conflict of opinion. Seven or eight doctors in one practice can agree relatively easily. A committee of 50 is another matter.
The mechanism that we are asked to accept as being the driver of financial discipline is a cap on management costs. How will those be defined? Can the Minister confirm absolutely whether or not there will be a cap on the drugs budget? If not, do the Government have any plans for controlling such expenditure? I ask again: where are the mechanisms to ensure that GPs prescribe within budget?
The Statement also speaks of NHS trusts comparing and not competing. I am not sure how much of that is semantics and how much a real departure, but to base comparisons on a national schedule of comparative costs of treating different conditions is not a facility that comes by waving a wand. The data underpinning such comparisons will need to be collected in detail, and often, if it is to have validity. How will that be done without extensive paperwork and form filling? Will the resultant benchmark be as applicable in London as in Liverpool, or as realistic in Plymouth as in Perth? I need to be convinced about the credibility of such figures and the cost effectiveness of gathering them.
The Government have high ambitions for the NHS and I welcome them. I welcome also their ambition to bring health and social care closer together. It will be admirable if that can be achieved. I shall be grateful if the Minister can expand on how the Government propose to achieve that.
32
In other respects my heart sinks at the terms of the Statement. The word "new" appears in it an off-putting number of times. I am suspicious of the word "new", as it conjures up marketing-speak. It would have been better if the Government had stuck to the substance without trying to doll it up. Further analysis will determine what these proposals amount to. At present I am fearful that the new NHS will mean new bureaucracy. I would genuinely like to believe the best of these proposals, but for the time being the jury is out and I suspect that it will remain out for some considerable time.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in the other place. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on two statements he made in his opening remarks. He mentioned his unbounded admiration for the robustness of the staff and the people working in the NHS in view of the greater demands which they have met in recent years. I agree with him. He quite rightly claims that to some extent his party can take credit for some of the changes that have taken place. But it must also take the blame for certain things.
One of the sad aspects of the health service is that this is about the eighth reorganisation of the service since 1974. Therefore, apart from paying credit to the staff of the NHS for the work they do, we must also pay enormous credit to them for the way in which they have kept their allegiance to the organisation during all those changes. It must have been very difficult for them.
As each change has taken place it has meant an increase in management costs. I know that the Statement says that this new reorganisation will reduce those costs, but I find that very difficult to accept. It is stated on page 8 of the Statement that the reorganisation will save the NHS £1 billion. That seems unbelievable. We are not moving towards reducing management costs; in my view we must be increasing them.
By removing GP fundholding we are creating groups of about 50 GPs who will get together to arrive at an agreed statement and demand what they need. In order to do that management structures will have to be set up. Fifty GPs cannot possibly meet round the table and hope to come to a conclusion. They will have to be served by some form of management. GP practices which are not at present fundholders will have to employ a manager. There will be a need to instal up-to-date computers in every practice, just as fundholding groups do at the moment. That is not going to save money. The same situation will apply to the primary care groups. In commissioning services for a particular area they will need a full-scale administrative structure behind them. I would like an explanation as to how we shall save £1 billion by changes of this kind.
I also find it difficult to accept that the internal market will be removed. I cannot see that there is much difference between the providers in the hospitals, as proposed for the future, and the present situation. All I can foresee is that they will have to deal with a larger number of commissioning groups. Instead of 100 health authorities there will be at least 500 local

33
commissioning groups. I therefore find it difficult to accept that there will be the savings that we are looking for.
However, I welcome one statement. That is the extension of the length of contract to be negotiated, which is to be for a period longer than one year. I believe that that will save money and time. It is a good measure, and one which we have been asking for for years. However, I have another request for the Government to consider when they look further into the proposed reorganisation. It is not enough to have GPs and community nurses working together providing what is called a unified health service. I believe that all social care needs to be included. I do not believe that greater control over the NHS budget by GPs will break down the "Berlin Wall" between health and social services. That will only be eradicated when health and local authority budgets are merged, as the Liberal Democrats have long advocated. I regret that it is impossible to go into all the details of the Statement, but I very much look forward to the main debate on the measures in this House.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness for their extremely authoritative remarks. I join with them in admiration for, and very much underline the points which were emphasised in the Statement about, the flexibility, skill and resilience of those who work for the NHS in the quality of care that they provide and have provided over a long period of years.
The point about the increase in bureaucracy which both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness thought might result from what is contained in the Statement goes against the point that I made about the reduction in costs of £1 billion a year. That has been very carefully costed. I know that the noble Baroness was concerned that that figure was not broken down in detail in the Statement; however, it is broken down in some detail in the White Paper. If you reduce enormously the transaction costs of individual contracts between individual health authorities and local health providers, as the new system will; if you cap management costs in both health authorities and local commissioning groups; if you abolish extra-contractual referrals and ask everyone to work to a national reference system of pricing for particular treatments; and if you work, as we intend to do, to an agreed and well worked out budget of £3 per patient within each commissioning group, the sum mentioned is not at all unrealistic. It has been appropriately costed. That sum will be demonstrated to have been saved by the end of this Parliament. The simple fact of reducing the number of commissioning bodies, which I mentioned in the Statement, from nearly 4,000—I believe that the absolute figure is 3,700 to 500 across the country must in itself reduce the administrative and management costs at a stroke, as it were.
I appreciate the points made by both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness about the capacity of the local commissioning groups to assume such a very broad agenda. Perhaps I should point out that—again, in contrast with the previous major changes in the health
34
service to which the noble Baroness referred—this will be an evolutionary change. As I said in the Statement, the programme is devised to progress along a 10-year timeframe. We do not expect that every local commissioning group or every local group of GPs will be able to assume full responsibility at the beginning of the process. As is clearly demonstrated in the White Paper, we accept that there will have to be a well structured, evolutionary process from a position where a GP group might be acting simply in an advisory capacity to its local health authority to a position where that local GP group might assume the powers to run local services or, indeed, even the local community trust.
I am not quite sure where the noble Earl and noble Baroness found the figure of 50 GPs sitting around a table. That was certainly not mentioned in the Statement and, as far as I can recall those 81 pages, it does not appear in the White Paper. I should emphasise in general terms that it is intended that there should be great flexibility with regard to the local commissioning arrangements. There will be differing responsibilities and different degrees of authority assumed depending on the skills that can be demonstrated. The groups will be flexible in size and type, again depending on the nature of the community served and the geographical region.
The whole emphasis of the White Paper is that we want to re-establish the National Health Service in terms of national service frameworks, national quality standards, and as a national organisation for clinical effectiveness and for cost effectiveness. However, we expect that local people will want to choose the way in which their local commissioning group and local health authority function. There will be no diktat from the centre about how that should be done, but we shall require it to be carried out within the new statutory general framework. Perhaps the noble Earl and the noble Baroness are looking for something slightly more rigid than appears in the White Paper.
We are extremely keen to promote the amalgamation of social care and health care. That is why there will be a new statutory obligation on both NHS trusts and local GP commissioning groups to form partnerships—not simply with other health service providers, but with other providers and with the leaders of other agencies, both in the statutory and voluntary sectors, at local level.
The noble Baroness had a good point about the funding structure of local services. We shall want to explore that in the development of this work. As both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness will be aware, 42 primary care commissioning group pilot schemes are currently being established to try to develop some of these arrangements in ways which seem to us to demonstrate best practice in different parts of the country.
In the context of the amalgamation of health and social care and the involvement of other agencies such as those relating to education and the environment at a local level, perhaps I should mention the health action zones. They appear in the White Paper but not in the Statement because they have previously been

35
announced. They will bring together all the different functions in 10 pilot projects which will, again, start next year.
Overall, I must reinforce our belief that this change will be effective in reducing bureaucracy. It will enable local initiatives to continue to flourish. Those local initiatives must, however, be contained within the national quality frameworks which will enable us to get away from the lottery of care, which was one of the unfortunate results of the internal market.
The noble Earl said that this change was being made for presentational purposes. He referred to "The new NHS". Perhaps I may draw his attention to the first page of the White Paper which shows that that title has been derived from that of the original White Paper on the NHS in 1948. That White Paper was called "The New National Health Service". Presentational skills may have been less important then.
4.25 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will help me a little. From the Statement one gained the impression that she had inherited from the previous administration a collection of tents in a swamp in Bangladesh. I can promise the Minister that the last time that I had to go to hospital I was advised to use the National Health Service. In Surrey, the NHS and our local GP service—I do not know whether it is fund-holding—is of such quality that it should be emulated and copied in all areas. It ill behoves the new Administration to downgrade the achievements of the last government in making the NHS worthy of an enormous amount of admiration. I say that as somebody who applied for an appointment with a specialist the other day and the appointment came through so quickly that I had to postpone it. That is the efficiency of our local health service. It ill becomes the party opposite, which has suddenly become Her Majesty's advisers, to imply that what went before was not absolutely super—because it jolly well was!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing out the excellence of the services in his locale. I wish that it were true throughout the country. Some extremely good services are offered by the NHS. One of the particular frustrations of the way in which the service was fragmented by the previous internal market system was that precisely the excellent service (which I am glad that the noble Earl enjoys in his part of the country) was not spread throughout the country. Excellent services were not available to everyone. They were available only in certain areas. We are not downgrading what happened previously. As I said in my first sentence in response to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness who spoke earlier, all of us are agreed on the enormous skills, dedication and commitment of NHS staff. What we want to do is to improve the service. We do not want to preside over something that people think may last only another 10 years. We intend the service to improve and
36
modernise so that it is there in 50 years' time, serving all of the people of this country in the way in which the noble Earl is being served now.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for repeating the Statement. Those of us who work on a day-to-day basis in the health service know how far short the protestations that we have just heard about the health service are from the actual practice. It is true that the previous government made some improvements—I have grave doubts about the internal market—but despite what the noble Earl. Lord Howe, said, the previous government at least made some investment in research and development. However, one consistent problem has been that that research and development has not been able to be put into practice. I am sure that the House would be grateful if the Minister could refer to the new national institute of clinical excellence and say how it will help us to improve the application of research in the health service and how that body will interface with our existing centres of excellence. We welcome the opportunity of this body; it seems like a very far-seeing idea.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He is right that it is the excellence of research and development and the clinical care by individuals like himself in the health service that maintain the quality of standards. He is also right that we want those standards to be broadly disseminated and most effectively introduced. We hope that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will do precisely that.
There are a number of such organisations funded within the health service, some of which have been set up in the past few years. For example. the health technology assessment organisation at the University of Southampton is already doing good work in this area. However, these bodies are rather disparate and do not pull together in providing a national basis for assessing and disseminating the best quality evidence on which clinically-led medicine can proceed. The intention is that the national institute should bring together those organisations that already provide some of the evidence and lean on some of the others to ensure that throughout the country the understanding of research and development is put into practice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am concerned that the Statement recites that the health service has set doctor against doctor. I do not accept that for a moment. My experience of the health service is that all of those within it work well together. It is most unfortunate that the Statement says that.
However, my main interest lies in the costs to which the noble Baroness has referred. The Statement says that management costs will be capped. The noble Baroness went on to explain that that would mean £3 per person. Can the Minister elaborate on exactly what that £3 covers? I believe that it refers to the management of the new structure.
The Statement goes on to refer to the fact that there will be clear incentives and sanctions to help drive improvements in performance at every level. It is clear

37
that the budget will be tightly operated. The Minister said that the health service and the social services would be working together. Can she elaborate on the budget? Does this mean that we shall have to pay something for health services or that all of the social services will be free? One of the problems has always been the division of costs as between care, particularly long-term care, in hospitals in the NHS and care in residential homes.
I note that on page 2 of the White Paper the document of 48 years ago is reproduced. I have seen the original document. Until I saw it recently I had not appreciated that at the opening of the National Health Service the then Labour Government said that they were unable to introduce a proper dental service. When the Minister says that we are going back to the position 50 years ago,I believe that that is exactly so. There is still an inadequate NHS dental service. It is only on page 85 of the document that one sees any reference to dentistry. It states:
"Primary Care
Family health services provided by family doctors, dentists, pharmacists, optometrists and ophthalmic medical practitioners".
That is the definition of primary care. Except for doctors and nurses, there is no mention anywhere of how the primary care services are to be run. As a dentist I believe it is very important that people should be given access to national health dentistry again. I ask the Minister to comment on the points that I have just made.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made several points. I hope that I can remember all of them. I start with the last point. Of course, the Government intend to include dental care in the organisation of primary care. The precise proposals in that regard will be provided in the consultation document on the framework for developing the management organisation, which I suspect will not be published until after Christmas. It had been intended that it should be published alongside the White Paper but it was regarded as rather indigestible. As regards dentistry, I do not believe that I have said anything to suggest that we want to go back 50 years. In many ways we do not even wish to go back to the 1970s. I was merely responding, perhaps in a light hearted way, to the noble Earl's point about presentation and the adoption of this particular title.
The costs will be much more clearly spelt out in the management framework document. However, we are all aware of the Berlin Wall, as we call it, between social services and healthcare organisations. When we looked at the very specific problem of how to spend the relatively small sum of extra money on the winter pressures, we made a deliberate effort to try to devote some of it to social services, for example to ensure that community care in particular areas was in place over the Christmas period and people were not held in hospital who could otherwise be discharged to their homes. There has been a very effective and co-operative development at practical level, often in mundane areas such as the provision of local patient transport to deal with a short-term situation. But I believe that it bodes quite well for the future development of partnership in this area.
38
As I said in repeating the Statement, there will be a statutory requirement for partnership. It is hoped that some of the more detailed mechanisms or arrangements between the two will evolve. For example, a chief executive of a local authority will not be a member of the local health authority but will be able to take part in that authority's deliberations. The opportunities for partnership are there. As I said in my original answer to the noble Baroness, there are questions about funding which it is hoped we will have a chance to explore through health action zones and other pilots.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise to congratulate my noble friend on repeating the Statement this afternoon. Over the past 19 years I have watched the tremendous efforts of all those who have participated actively in the health service, in particular in a direct capacity—doctors, nurses and so on. Nevertheless, as one who was marginally responsible for the introduction of the health service in 1948, when I stood behind my noble friend on the other side of the House I witnessed the depressingly steady erosion of the values that we sought in those days in founding the National Health Service. It was very depressing indeed. It has not been pleasant to observe the degeneration in the administration of the health service to a point where it is rapidly becoming a two-tier service, as everyone who has participated in it as a patient or otherwise knows perfectly well.
I am confident that a beginning is now being made—and that I can be cheerful once again—to restore progressively the old values of the health service. I dislike the terms "new" and "modern". I believe that there are two factors which my noble friends in government should bear in mind. First, it is not true that we are at the limit of our financial resources in financing the National Health Service. This country's expenditure on health is marginally less than 6 per cent. of GDP; in France it is 7 per cent. and in other countries it is more than that. Therefore, literally speaking, it is not true that we are at the limits of our prudent financing of the health service. What is true is that we can have a profound effect upon its cost by ensuring that poverty and bad housing are progressively abolished, unemployment ceases to be a chronic problem and the fear and insecurity that lie behind many of the claims of patients in the health service are progressively eliminated. I am confident that my noble friend and her colleagues will do that, and I hope that they will take account of the observations that I have ventured to make.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful for the observations of my noble friend and his congratulations. I well remember the debate on the 50th anniversary of the Royal Assent to the National Health Service Bill which took place almost this time last year. My noble friend made his contribution from the very place where he had stood behind the then Secretary of State during the passage of that Bill. In a sense that reinforced our understanding of the continuity of the values represented by the NHS. My noble friend is right to say that as a proportion of our national income

39
the NHS is an extremely cost-effective organisation. That is precisely what we wish to build upon in ensuring that the evidence-based approach to cost-effectiveness reinforces those standards.
I do not wish to be drawn too much into discussion about the semantics of the "New NHS". However, I would remind my noble friend that in the last paragraph of the Statement we talk of:
"A new National Health Service based on its timeless principles".
I hope that he will accept that.
The question of the organisation of the general social policy as reinforcing those timeless principles is of course essential. That is what I hope we shall see developed within the health action zone pilots, where at least as much emphasis will be put on the policies about which my noble friend talks—local employment, local environmental policies and local education problems—as the delivery of NHS care. I agree with him that policies such as the minimum wage and other similar policies contribute at least as much to the health of the population as the organisation of the health service.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, there is much in the Statement that will be welcomed by those who work within the health service, especially the warmth, enthusiasm and vigour, the words about partnership and working together, and all the assurances about how much might be available. I welcome in particular comments about health and social services working together, as they have been integrated in Northern Ireland for almost 30 years.
I wonder whether everything in the Statement is quite what it appears to be. While there is talk about ending the internal market, and no more fundholding, it seems to me that in a curious way all GPs will become fundholders. They will not have funds of course; they will have budgets. They will not work as individual practices but as large commissioning groups. I wonder whether that will achieve all the radical changes that are suggested, although I suspect that it might help a little with bureaucracy.
There are then the words about corrosive commercialism. I entirely share that view. However I see little evidence that PFI will disappear. Rather it seems likely to take an increased share of the health service's revenue expenditure in the future. The biggest issue which has not been addressed is that while we can talk about scientific excellence, quality, making everything available and ensuring that everyone has everything that they need, there are questions of resources and whether services have to be rationed.
The health service has available to it now forms of treatment and approaches which were not available when it began, or even 10 years ago. There are expensive treatments and ways of working. There are ways of working which were always available, even in the health service's heyday, but more in the south east of England than in the north of England or the other provinces. However unappealing it may be, there needs to be a national debate on what the NHS can do and some of the things it cannot do.
40
I am a little disappointed that the opportunity to look at the future of the health service has not faced that issue realistically, albeit that the warmth and robustness of the presentation will give a good feeling to many of those working in the health service and those dependent upon it, at least for this afternoon.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments, especially those on the position in Northern Ireland, which, I agree, provides an interesting model. I shall pick up on a point from the Statement which answers the general points that he made. We are determined to ensure that what counts with us is what works. We believe that what has worked has been the effective division between planning and having a strategy for local services and providing. We do not believe that that maintains anything to do with the market.
On the noble Lord's point about the cost drivers of introducing more effective evidence-based healthcare, I believe that there will be a balance. The question will be how that balance works out. I shall give him one example of how scientific evidence has reduced costs. There has been great pressure in this country. much of it led by people who are concerned about their own health, to introduce the prostate screening programme for cancer. The health technology assessment organisation at Southampton, about which I spoke earlier, demonstrated clearly that that was not an effective way of dealing with the matter, and therefore it has not been introduced. There will be a balance.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this is an important Statement which has given those of us who work in the health service much cause for thought. I declare an interest as chairman of St. Mary's NHS Trust, as the Minister is aware. There may be much in the Statement that can be praised in certain ways. The one element that I would take up, which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, mentioned, is extending the contract for three years. I am sure that that will be supported.
There are a couple of other matters. Will the Minister say what progress is being made, and when an announcement is to be made, on the London review, because that will have a major impact, at least in one part of the country, about what the Statement can achieve? An area upon which she might touch, which does not seem to feature at all, is the role of academic medicine. That, at least in part, helps define how NHS delivery of service is obtained, where and how it can be done and how trusts could co-operate with one another. Will she also enlighten me about what appears to be a contradiction on page 6 of the Statement which states:
"NHS Trusts will have statutory obligations to co-operate with other parts of the NHS, and to meet quality standards"?
The Statement then continues:
"Hospital doctors will have a greater say in shaping local services for patients".
Will those doctors be expected to operate outside the terms of their own trusts or within them?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. On the point about London,

41
I am afraid that I cannot give him a date. It is something which is progressing as rapidly as we can make it progress, and it will emerge shortly.
On the point about academic medicine, I believe that I touched upon that briefly in my response to my noble friend Lord Winston. There is an important part for academic medicine which is dealt with extensively in the White Paper, particularly the R&D side. I am sorry, but I have forgotten the noble Lord's third point.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the doctors.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is not a contradiction in the two parts of the Statement. There will be the introduction within NHS trusts of what is called clinical governance, which will enable the doctors and the managers to work together. The chief executive of the health trust will be responsible for the hospital's financial and clinical standards. The planning for a locality's health improvement programme could well bridge a hospital and a community trust.

Civil Justice and Legal Aid
4.47 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the reform of civil justice and legal aid.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this debate concerns two inter-related issues: the Government's plans for modernising the civil justice system and taking control of the cost of civil legal aid. They are often seen separately but they are linked.
Our civil justice reforms are based closely on the two historic reports of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. The Government—in fact, the whole justice system—is indebted to him for his perceptive analysis of the problems of the civil justice system, and for the practical solutions he put forward. Our proposals for both civil justice and for taking control of legal aid have been shaped by the excellent report prepared by Sir Peter Middleton and published in October. The Government made a manifesto pledge to review civil justice and legal aid together, as two halves of a single package. The Middleton review fulfilled that pledge.
I announced the Government's initial response at the solicitors' annual conference in Cardiff on 18th October. Today I explain how our proposals have developed over the past two months; and the steps we are taking to consult widely on how best to tackle the problems facing us, not least on legal aid.
The present legal aid scheme is costing more and delivering less. Eligibility has steadily fallen because costs have risen. Over the past seven years, the cost of civil and family legal aid has tripled to £671 million. The average cost for proceedings that received full legal aid in 1990-91 was £1,442. If that cost had grown in line with inflation, that would represent £1,760 at today's prices. The actual average cost was £2,684. That represents an increase of 53 per cent. above inflation, or an average increase of 8 per cent. per year. While civil
42
and family legal aid continued to rise last year, the number of acts of assistance that it funded fell by 39,000. That cannot be allowed to continue. We are paying more and getting less from the lawyers.
Let me refute the assertion that our proposals for reform are Treasury-driven in order to cut the legal aid budget. This is wrong. We do not intend either to increase or reduce the cost of legal aid in real terms. We plan to spend not one penny less than the previous government planned to do. But we also plan to take control of the legal aid budget. We plan to do that by buying services from lawyers through the mechanism of block contracts. Lawyers will be asked to contract for work at fixed prices. Our intention is that block contracting should be used to take control of both civil legal aid and criminal legal aid.
I have mentioned previously the sums that some lawyers receive from the public purse. Lawyers in the private sector are free to charge what the market will bear. But I make no apology for saying again that the level of fees being charged to the public purse is too high. I intend to bring this to an end. In 1996–97, 35 barristers received between £270,000 and £575,000 for criminal work. In 1996–97, 20 barristers received between £203,000 and £41 1,000 for civil work and that apart from any income they earned from privately paying clients.
A High Court judge earns £112,011. A Lord Justice of Appeal earns £124,511. Many hospital consultants earn £56,000 to £70,000 a year. Judges and hospital consultants work hard over long hours. Judges and hospital consultants have highly responsible jobs. The lives of many people depend on their professionalism. Yet almost 1,000 barristers earned from legal aid last year more than hospital consultants are paid.
It is against that background that our reforms need to be seen. I want to see legal aid reformed to benefit the people who most need help. I will use the same amount of money available for legal aid but, using a combination of better planning and block contracting, will ensure that it will be spent providing the right kind of help at the right time and at the right price to the most needy. Block contracts will be overlapping to ensure constant availability. This way we can both control and plan how much we spend, but also make sure that the money does not run out before the end of the year.
Regional legal services committees will involve local people in drawing up plans which will match services to the needs of a particular area and determine how they can best be delivered. This chimes with the Government's wider objective of returning power to the community.
Using these locally determined plans, the Legal Aid Board will be able to let contracts for services that meet local needs and national priorities in the best way. In particular, that will include contracts for advice work. Advisers who work in areas which are not traditionally of interest to lawyers—for example, housing—will be contracted to provide services.
Hand-in-hand with block contracting, the Government are looking again at the mechanisms available to make sure that taxpayers' money is spent on the cases which are the most deserving. Cutting eligibility, as the previous government did, is a crude and unfair instrument of control. This Government have turned their attention to the operation of the merits test. I want to see it tightened so that only cases with a high probability of success are granted legal aid. I will be issuing a consultation paper next year setting out these proposals in more detail.
Merits bring me to the connected issue of how to identify and deal with public interest cases. These will include cases under the Human Rights Bill when it becomes law. Many of the finest solicitors and barristers in this country work on behalf of the disadvantaged in our society. They represent the poorest and the disempowered. Their commitment is in the best traditions of public service. They provide access to the law for those who are often worst served by the legal system. These are lawyers who do not become rich. They act for refugees, asylum seekers, prisoners, mental patients and victims of abuse and assault. When public authorities or public servants make mistakes or abuse their power, it is regularly the most vulnerable in our communities who are at the receiving end. It is this phalanx of lawyers who take up the law to fight for redress for them.
Only too recently our criminal legal system was shaken by acknowledged miscarriages of justice. If committed lawyers had not spent long unrewarded hours upon those cases, terrible wrongs would never have been put right.
To all of these lawyers, I say that their commitment to their clients will be matched by my commitment to them. In seeking reform of the legal aid system, I intend to focus it sharply on cases involving the social welfare of disadvantaged citizens and cases that raise issues of wider public interest. Within that overall pattern, cases where an individual citizen is challenging an institution of the state will command a high priority. This could include cases where the allegation is of police malpractice. I am determined to ensure that people with serious claims of this kind will be able to obtain the legal help they need under the reforms I am introducing.
I see considerable force in the argument that funding these cases might be justified at a lower threshold of merit than is appropriate for the general run of cases. One of the strengths of our proposals is that the new merits test will be flexible. It will be possible to use different criteria and set the hurdles at different heights to reflect the priority and importance of different types of cases. But a number of fundamental issues are still to be resolved. Is there a category of "public interest cases" that would be better handled by a separate fund rather than within the main legal aid scheme? If so, how precisely are we to define public interest cases? In either event, what criteria should individual cases have to satisfy in order to receive funding? I intend to consult on these issues in the New Year.
I have been talking so far about legal aid and people turning to legal aid in order to secure advice and representation. Legal aid is restricted to the very poor. But it is not the only means of paying for advice. The Government are proposing, subject to consultation, to extend the availability of "no-win, no-fee", or conditional fee agreements, so that the vast majority of people in this country can afford to have real access to justice. The vast majority are those who are not poor enough to have full legal aid, nor rich enough not to have to care how much litigation will cost. The Government will be issuing a formal consultation paper in the New Year setting out their proposals in detail. But we are already engaged in discussions with the professions and others.
I know that some of your Lordships feel very deeply that conditional fee agreements should not have been introduced to this country. I know that some believe that conditional fee agreements put the integrity of lawyers, and their duty to the court, under stress by giving them a direct interest in the outcome of the case. But I have to say that that does not appear to have been borne out since conditional fees became lawful in 1995. The ethics of the legal profession are strong and are strongly enforced. In the recent research, 97 per cent. of agreements included a voluntary 25 per cent. cap on the proportion of damages that could be taken by the success fee. The average mark up for success was 43 per cent. This is a good demonstration of the ability of lawyers to ensure that the needs of the client are not simply suborned to maximising profit, and that they are able to balance duty to the client with the needs of their firm to show profits overall.
The Government are set to begin the task of reforming legal aid by refocusing expenditure towards those areas where publicly-funded legal services are the only option available to the poor. As part of this, we propose to remove from the scope of civil legal aid most cases involving claims for money or damages which we believe can, in future, be funded through conditional fee agreements.
Our critics object that poor people will not be able'to use conditional fee agreements because they will not be able to pay for the preliminary investigations which are needed to determine the strength of their cases; nor, it is said, will they be able to pay the insurance premiums needed to back the conditional fee agreement.
One of the objections that I have heard from lawyers is that they expect insurance premiums to be high. Fortunately, this is not the message that I am getting from the insurance industry. I have been much encouraged in the discussions that I and my officials have had with them. I can tell your Lordships that the scare stories of uniformly high premiums are no more than that. Of course, in some cases premiums will be high to reflect the risk being underwritten. But, equally, premiums are being offered at much lower figures than in the scare stories. Rather than the headline-grabbing £15,000 for medical negligence cases often quoted, I am told that cover has more often been provided at much lower sums—in the region of £3,000. Provided only really strong cases go forward, it is not impossible for a well-run solicitors' firm to run the risk of losing money

45
of that order in the few cases where costs are not recovered from the other side—especially given the costs they will recover, and their entitlement to a success fee in cases that they win.
The insurance industry is competitive. It is already developing the products that will be needed, including products where there would be no up-front costs and where lawyers could protect themselves from an unlucky run of losing cases by "stop-loss" insurance.
There is a wide range of products already available. These fall into the two broad categories of "before-the-event" policies and "after-the-event" policies. Before-the-event policies are traditional legal expenses insurance policies which people buy in conjunction with their motor or household contents insurance. They have been available for over 20 years. Seventeen million people are already covered by one of them. They usually cost between £4 and £20 a year.
There are also after-the-event products available which will cover costs at reasonable premiums. The policies can apply whether there is a conditional fee arrangement in place or not. One product which was quoted to me covered both sides' costs to a limit of £6,000 for a premium of £362 without there even being a conditional fee agreement. The innovative capacity of the industry to match insurance cover to need should not be doubted. The industry has told me that it expects to move sufficiently quickly to develop and launch new products so as to have them available by the time that the changes that I propose to conditional fees and legal aid are made.
I ask your Lordships to contrast that with the gloom and doom of the lawyers' professional bodies when faced with changes which they fear threaten their traditional vested interests.
I do, however, recognise that affordable insurance is only one part of the picture. It is equally important to look at other ways of funding investigative costs and premiums. It could be that in certain types of case—and medical negligence is often the special case cited—the risks and costs cannot be borne by the lawyers. In these cases alternative arrangements may be necessary. I will therefore be talking to banks and financial institutions to see what arrangements can be made. Here again I can tell your Lordships that the insurance industry is already engaged on this task of producing products that marry cover for the risk with funding to run the case as it proceeds.
Some have suggested that I should consider establishing a contingency legal aid fund. The Bar—the main proponents of that—has to work-up its proposals into final form to put to me. My door remains open; but, as I said in my speech in Cardiff, I have doubts how a contingency legal aid fund could operate alongside conditional fees. It seems to me self-evident that the cases with the highest chances of success would inevitably be funded by conditional fee agreements, leaving riskier cases to be paid for from the fund. That would inevitably mean that the fees charged on winning cases would be much higher, or the taxpayer would have to continue to provide money to keep the fund solvent. Also, a contingency legal aid fund would mean that
46
lawyers bear no part of the risks of litigation. It is that which my reforms seek to change. But I say this: if the profession can meet my concerns in these areas, I am more than willing to consider them carefully. I have the opposite of a closed mind on this subject.
It has been said that our intention to change the scope of legal aid by April 1998 is too rushed. I do not agree. I am deeply concerned to begin to meet the areas of need which are not presently covered by legal aid as quickly as possible. I am talking about real people with real problems—and they need help now, not in a year or 18 months or longer. But I cannot provide them with help until I am able to bring the legal aid budget under proper control. I ask your Lordships not to forget that the legal aid budget is rising more quickly than any other area of public expenditure. I make no apology therefore for seeking to move quickly to begin the reforms which will re-focus, not cut, legal aid.
My officials are working hard to ensure the timetable can be met. But I also want to engage in a constructive dialogue along the way with people who understand the work of the civil justice system and the needs of consumers—who are in particular the poor and vulnerable. My officials are currently discussing the issues and problems with a range of professional bodies, consumer groups and other interested groups. I am determined to go wider than any statutory obligation to consult. The Government welcome constructive comment on the whole sweep of our proposals.
Early in the New Year, I shall be issuing consultation papers, which will be informed by the discussions we are having, on conditional fees; the changes to scope of civil legal aid; and public interest cases. These consultation papers will be made widely available. I hope they will encourage a more informed debate. All this moves hand in hand with our proposals to create three routes to civil justice. The first will be an expanded small claims procedure with a £5,000 upper limit. But the small claims procedure, though very successful, is not suitable for every case.
The Government have therefore decided to adopt the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for more "hands on" management of cases by judges, through the creation of the second and third routes, a fast track and a multi track. Power will be transferred from lawyers to judges. Judges will allocate cases to the appropriate track. The courts will have greater control over the progress, cost and length of cases as they move to trial. Both the fast track and the multi track will be up and running by April 1999.
We have been, and will continue, consulting widely on the detail of our proposed civil justice reforms. We consulted on proposed procedures for the fast track and the multi track in the summer. I shall shortly be making policy decisions on the outcome. Consultation papers on clinical negligence procedures, multi-party situations, the other specialist jurisdictions and on our proposals to increase the small claims and fast track upper limit have also been issued. Forthcoming consultation will cover our proposals for a fixed costs regime which we intend should accompany tough judicial case management in the fast track.
Finally, I know that the court fee structure is of concern to many of your Lordships. Some may go so far as to suggest that I should not charge court fees at all. I have said before in your Lordships' House that, while I accept that citizens have what may be called a constitutional right to a court system, I do not accept that they have a right to a free court system. I reiterate that what the state provides free, or at a charge, is a matter of policy for government. I do not believe that any constitutional issue arises in government deciding that, in principle, those who use the civil courts are required to meet the costs of doing so.
However, I am on record as accepting that people should not be excluded from the court system because the fees they are asked to pay are unaffordable. I have already taken steps to help the many who cannot afford the existing fees because of their low incomes. In response to concerns raised in this House, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—whose lifetime's service to the objectives of a just legal system is so well recognised—I have extended exemptions to those in receipt of income-related job seeker's allowance, or family credit, or disability working allowance. This change came into effect on 1st December. Those in receipt of income support have been, and continue to be, exempt from all court fees. The civil fee structure, however, is irrational and hopelessly out-of-date. It needs to be reformed. I will therefore be issuing another consultation paper inviting discussion on the principles which should underlie a new fee structure.
All those reforms, combined with extending conditional fees and taking control of legal aid, will build a civil justice system in which there is equality between the very poor, the very rich and the vast majority in the middle.
Our citizens need and deserve a modern, tailored legal advice service to help them gain access to a reformed civil justice system. In the short term, the work of regional legal services committees in providing better planning mechanisms, together with the use of block contracting by the Legal Aid Board, will enable local people to be involved in making decisions about the kind of advice services they need and how those services should be delivered.
In the longer term, the Government will fulfil another manifesto pledge by creating a community legal service. The service could provide telephone helplines, education in rights and obligations; legal advice on the internet; referrals to alternative dispute resolution; legal representation in tribunals; even interactive kiosks in every high street or supermarket dispensing basic information about the law and the legal system. Those are some of our ideas. There is a project team at work in my department, which is looking forward to learning the ideas of others.
Our reforms will retain a legally-aided safety net for the poor while, at the same time, creating real opportunities for everyone to have access to justice—for the vast majority of the population, not just the very rich and the very poor. This access will be to a civil justice system that is cheaper, faster, simpler and more
48
certain than the one we have today. I am convinced that everyone in due course will benefit from these reforms. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the reform of civil justice and legal aid.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.11 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, not only to be able to disagree respectfully with the substance of his speech on the proposed reform of legal aid, but also to scotch the rumour that, during the restoration of his residence, someone found a funny-shaped hat stuffed up a chimney covered with ages of soot. I have it on the authority of Father Christmas that this is just one of those silly jokes. According to today's edition of The Times, a fairy godmother (Mistress Hoon) with a wave of a magic wand, has ordained that the Government shall listen to what is said on all sides of your Lordships' House in this debate; but your Lordships may be given to wonder, having heard the tone and content of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, whether such be the case.
The proposals for reform of civil justice are indeed very much welcomed in principle. No doubt other noble Lords will deal with that aspect of reform. As to the proposed reform of legal aid, the noble and learned Lord's figures speak for themselves. It is common ground that steps can and must be taken to reduce the cost of legal aid to the Exchequer. But the means proposed by the noble and learned Lord—for example, the withdrawal of legal aid from all money and damage claims and the extension of conditional fees to all civil, non-family cases—will dismantle a vital social service and inhibit access to civil justice under those proposed reforms. Your Lordships may well think that a major provision of general public importance such as this ought to be introduced by primary legislation, not by secondary legislation on some ex cathedra pronouncement of the noble and learned Lord.
On the chequer board of government fiscal policy, where the end game is to avoid increase in income tax by reducing the cost, range and quality of a variety of services funded by the Exchequer, this is but one move. Other moves, such as raising council tax, withdrawal of tax concessions, and so on, are irrelevant save to set the perspective. This is a very special and distinct area where the public has hitherto enjoyed, and is entitled to continue to enjoy, the highest professional standards of conduct and the highest quality of professional service; and, indeed, freedom of access to our civil system of justice.
The question is whether those legitimate expectations can be fulfilled either by the extension of conditional fees, or by the legal aid regime as it is proposed to be implemented. Assuredly, extensions of "conditional fees" afford no viable or acceptable substitute for the safety-net provision of legal aid.
The "merit test" on grant of legal aid could, if too stringent, undermine its functions in the future: if too lax, as at present, it could destabilise the financial

49
structure of the system; as, indeed, has been the case. What is needed is the urgent introduction of an effective system of control. For where legal aid would remain available, the Government propose to apply a 75 per cent. assurance of the probability of success. That would remove almost all difficult and complex cases, but nonetheless deserving cases. Assuredly there must be a measure of flexibility.
For many years, and rightly so, the Law Society has pressed for improvement to the operation of the merits test for the grant of legal aid, and for fundamental revision of the guidelines. All too often has legal aid been granted on the basis of counsel's opinion written upon insufficient, erroneous and incomplete instructions, without seeking further instructions on the merits of the case. At times the point of law is only arguable as an open question on the ground that it has not been raised before, although the prospects of success are indeed slender.
As to the merit test, surely it should be the same as when advising a non-legally-aided client: that there should be a substantial prospect of success which some of us put at the order of 60:40, and that account must be taken of the probable costs of litigation (win or lose) of which some estimate is given to the client, as well as the warning of the inherent incertitude of all litigation. It is rare, but it happens, that a client may say, "I have come to you to fight my case at all costs, which I can afford. Will you take it on?" But that has nothing to do with the merits test. It has nothing to do with the legal aid situation.
There is no doubt that the representations of the Law Society are entirely well founded and that there should be a complete overhaul not only of the merits test but of the current regime as to the grant and continuance of legal aid. For example, those who maintain an affluent lifestyle in apparent luxury having disposed of their assets to family, friends or—dare one say it these days?—some trust, thus having little or no income, should have no entitlement to legal aid. The margins of expenditure on any one case should be limited. Some £600,000 spent on one civil case which failed would hardly have been acceptable even if it had succeeded.
All welfare provision is open to exploitation: housing benefit, social security benefit and the common agricultural policy with its set-asides, fictitious vineyards and fanciful olive groves. Legal aid is no exception to any other aspect of welfare, but why not introduce a new, stringent regime of control of legal aid? Why dismember it in favour of a no win, no fee system which can only be workable if insurance is available to provide protection against paying the other side's costs if the case is lost? It is not understood how those on low incomes, eligible for legal aid, will be able to afford the cost of such insurance. It is not understood how they may obtain access to justice. Who will pay? I think the noble and learned Lord mentioned the figure of £3,000. Who will pay that £3,000? My information is that it is much more than that. The whole question of insurance as explained by the noble and learned Lord is in serious dispute. I refer to the alternative arrangements with banks and so forth. Those are nebulous suggestions, but who will pay? Will the solicitor have to underwrite this?
50
Someone has to underwrite it. If the banks are to underwrite it, where is the security? This is all extremely nebulous and unsatisfactory.
Any lawyer who takes on a case on a no win, no fee basis will have to satisfy himself that the damage claim is sufficiently substantial to cover his usual fees with a contract mark up. In order to satisfy himself on that he will have to take proofs of witnesses, obtain documents and very often obtain extra reports which will have to be paid for on demand. It will be up to the lawyer to decide whether he takes on the case on a 50:50 basis; a 60:40 assessment; or a 75:25 prospect of success. However, few would operate very much under 75:25. There is no reason, no compunction and no obligation why they should do so. If the case is taken up, the litigant never receives the true measure of compensation. There is always the temptation to advise settlement at a substantial discount to safeguard the payment of fees.
I apologise for the length of my speech. In conclusion, the steps which should be taken are steps to reduce the cost of legal aid to the Exchequer. They are steps which would introduce a new stringent control to avoid exploitation of a system which in essence is a valuable system in both civil and criminal matters. There is no time for me to deal with the block contracts proposal. I must leave that to other noble Lords. I find it unsatisfactory and abhorrent. The proposed reforms are neither necessary to implement government fiscal policy nor are they well conceived. Litigants whose financial means would have otherwise entitled them to apply for legal aid will not get a fair deal. That is a matter of concern to noble Lords irrespective of where they choose to sit in your Lordships' House.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I greatly welcome the readiness of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to implement the radical recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to reform the civil justice system. I hope that he will be able to provide the necessary resources to make them work in practice. I respectfully join issue with him on one matter of principle, as I did with his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, namely, the notion that the costs of the civil courts should be paid by the users of the civil courts rather than by the general body of taxpayers. I make an exception for commercial users of the commercial court. However, I shall not elaborate on my objection to that principle this evening. There is no time and it goes beyond the debate. It raises a matter of political philosophy which is one's view of the role of the state and the role of public taxation.
I shall confine my remarks to the much more controversial proposals made in the powerful speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in relation to the public funding of legal services, in particular cutting legal aid for cases where money or damages are claimed and replacing legal aid with conditional fee agreements. I begin by observing that in

51
his keynote address to the Bar annual conference in 1996, when he was shadow Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said that,
"supporters of legal aid must never cease to emphasise that it is a highly successful public social service. In civil cases that reached judgments in 1995–96, judgments were in favour of the assisted person in 81% of cases. The proportion of cases where there was either a settlement or a judgment in favour was 91%.".
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor remains of the view that, in his words, legal aid,
"is a highly successful public social service",
even though I did not hear much in his speech referring to the high success of the system.
As I shall try to explain, I agree with most of the long-term aims of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I do not agree with the means that he has chosen at this stage to implement them. The fundamental question that these proposals raise is, why should public funding of legal services be a priority? I agree with the answer given by the Legal Action Group's admirable 1992 study, A Strategy for Justice. It stated:
"Legal services provide an important counterbalance to the evident inequalities in society, thereby helping to secure equal access to justice for all citizens".
The ultimate aim should surely be, in LAG's words, that,
"anyone with a legal problem has equal access to its just conclusion so that disputes are determined by the intrinsic merits of the arguments of either party, not by inequalities of wealth or power. To achieve that, legal aid policy alone provides too narrow a focus. It is necessary to consider a more comprehensive range of policies relating to the totality of public funded legal services".
That means making public funds available for a community legal service that is able to give more attention to public education, information, advice and representation in social welfare law cases—an important manifesto pledge made by New Labour that has now been relegated to a longer-term goal.
I am all in favour—I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—of strictly controlling the burgeoning cost of civil and criminal legal aid, ensuring real value for money, and preventing the undoubted misuse of public funds by some members of the legal profession, whether they are fat cats or leaner members of the species. I am also entirely in favour of preventing lawyers from overcharging for their services where the market place fails to do so because market forces are not working properly. But I cannot support changes made in the name of middle Britain that are likely to be detrimental to the interests of the poor.
Unlike some members of my profession, I have no rooted hostility to the existence of conditional fee agreements in appropriate cases, and subject to effective safeguards. Indeed, I persuaded the then Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Mayhew, to extend them to human rights cases in Strasbourg. But I am troubled by their ethical dangers—the point was not referred to by the Lord Chancellor—for members of an already unpopular legal profession. I find it difficult to understand how the extension of conditional fee
52
agreements will improve the public standing of lawyers whose clients will lose a substantial percentage of their damages to their lawyers, accused, fairly or unfairly, of being shysters.
Nor do I understand how replacing legal aid with conditional fee agreements will in many cases benefit the poor and vulnerable unable to find solicitors to act for them, unable to afford the cost of insurance, and unable properly to assess whether or not their solicitors are accurately assessing their prospects of success.
The Vice-Chancellor, Sir Richard Scott, pointed out in an article in the Guardian on 28th October that there are formidable practical problems about the wholesale extension of conditional fee agreements, and the need to ensure that deserving cases do not fall into a black hole where neither conditional fee agreement nor legal aid is available.
Those problems also apply to middle Britain. To give the example cited by the Vice-Chancellor, first, conditional fee agreements are unsuitable for cases in which substantial costs need to be incurred before it is clear whether or not there is a viable claim—for example, where expert evidence is needed for an opinion on liability to be formed in a medical negligence claim. Secondly, they do not cater for cases in which a successful plaintiff's damages or costs are unlikely to be paid by the proposed defendant. Thirdly, such agreements depend on the loser paying the winner's costs and enough damages for the lawyer to collect a success fee. But there are many cases in which the main purposes of the action are not to claim damages but to obtain, for example, an injunction. Fourthly, conditional fee agreements will not work for defendants. Fifthly, as Sir Richard pointed out, since conditional fee agreements need to be backed by insurance protecting against liability to pay the opponent's litigation costs if the proposed action should fail, access to the civil courts will be possible only for those who can afford to pay the premiums.
Access to justice will effectively be determined by the judgment of the solicitor, whether he or she is willing to take on a high risk case, the availability of insurance, and the ability of the individual to pay the insurance premium and other disbursements. In practice, that will mean that those currently eligible for legal aid, the poorest and the most vulnerable, will have no effective access to justice. The Government have recognised rightly that effective access to criminal justice is a basic human right. The same applies to effective access to civil justice. The right of access to civil justice is just as effectively guaranteed by Article 6 of the convention as is the right of access to criminal justice.
I do not agree also with the Lord Chancellor's proposals to tighten the merits test, not to 60 per cent. as he suggested in his keynote address to the Bar annual conference in 1996 as shadow Lord Chancellor, but to 75 per cent. now that he sits on the Woolsack. It is misleading to suppose that one can possibly forecast the prospect of success with precise percentages in the way suggested. But, more than that, after more than 30 years of practice at the Bar—having read earlier some of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord

53
Chancellor, I hope that I do not shock him in saying this—I cannot remember a single case, whether legally aided or otherwise, in which I have advised my client that he had a 75 per cent. likelihood of success. And all of my really important successes—and there have been some—have involved an even, or slightly better than even, prospect of success. A requirement of a 75 per cent. prospect of success would operate as a powerful deterrent against litigation which is in the public interest as well as in the interests of justice for the individual citizen.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept a humble compliment from this side of the Chamber? Is he not aware that he indulges in specialist cases of great complexity where it would be impossible even to forecast what any judge might decide?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I always find it extremely difficult to forecast what any judge will decide. That is why I would never hazard a 75 per cent. prospect of success, in particular before some of my best friends on the Bench. But I cannot recall any case in which I have been so confident of persuading, for example, noble and learned Lords who sit in this House, that I have been able to advise a 75 per cent. prospect of success. A threshold as high as that will severely restrict the less well-off in their access to legal services and to justice.
The Lord Chancellor has recognised that it would be right to make special arrangements for the public funding of public interest cases. That is most welcome; and I am glad that he has recognised also the contribution that lawyers make in such cases. I am sure that he did not mean to confine his praise only to that class of case. He has not been able to give information about how much will be available for this special fund for public interest cases, how it will be available, according to what criteria, or who will be the judge. Nor has he made clear whether it would be administered independently of the state and its agents. I very much hope that he will be able to give the House more information about what is intended when replying to the debate.
With respect to the other alternatives for controlling public expenditure and increasing access to justice, I am glad that the Lord Chancellor has not ruled out the sensible proposals first advocated not by the Bar Council but by Justice in 1966 for a contingency legal aid fund (CLAF). My noble friend Lord Goodhart is one of the main architects of the Justice scheme. I am sure that he will wish to explain its virtues in a way that I cannot. But a CLAF scheme such as that successfully operated in Australia would allow people requiring financial support to pursue a money recovery case to have their legal costs covered by the fund on condition that they agree to contribute to the fund a proportion of any damages recovered. The fund would be self-financing and could operate alongside conditional fee agreements and civil legal aid for those for whom neither CLAF nor conditional fee agreements are available. I very much hope that the Lord Chancellor, who has an open mind on the question, will look
54
favourably on the idea as modified by the Law Society in its memorandum, Better Value Better Justice, published in June 1996.
Almost 30 years ago I was privileged to work with the Lord Chancellor's former pupil master, the wise and compassionate Morris Finer QC, and Professor Michael Zander and Geoffrey Bindman, when we wrote a Society of Labour Lawyers' report, Justice for All. In it, we examined the problems of the unmet need for legal services and the various factors contributing to the failure of the urban poor to obtain equal access to justice. We pointed out that the legal aid scheme had been grafted upon the traditional structure of the legal profession and had therefore been shaped and restricted by the limits of that structure. Those limits may mean, for example, that there is only one firm of solicitors in a particular working-class neighbourhood which is open only during working hours, which discourages unprofitable work and whose solicitors know much about conveyancing and little about social security. Within such a system the legal aid scheme works fairly well; but the legal profession is simply not organised to provide a social service in areas of special need.
Instead of recommending a vast increase in legal aid, our alternative strategy was, and remains, comparatively inexpensive and cost-effective: a community legal service of legal centres and legally-supported CABs in the heart of areas of special need, staffed by properly paid, full-time qualified lawyers, open in the evenings as well as during the day, giving expert advice on the special legal problems of local residents and, where necessary, referring cases to social workers or private lawyers. Such centres would be independent of government, and would provide a means of protecting the weak against the abuse of government or private power. They would not undermine the independence of the legal profession, nor would they erode its private structure. They would supplement the services already given by lawyers in areas where legal services are not adequately provided.
I still hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able, as he would wish, to give a community legal service high priority, together with the speedy and effective implementation of the vital proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to reform the civil justice system. I hope he will reconsider his other proposals in the light of this debate.
In his powerful essay in Law Reform for All, published last year, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wrote:
"The ambition of any Labour Lord Chancellor must be to restore legal aid to the status of a public social service which is so highly regarded for its economy and efficiency in securing access to justice that, with the support of the public, it can compete for scarce resources with the most highly regarded services such as health … Legally enforceable rights and duties--enforceable in reality and not only in theory—underpin a democratic society under the rule of law. Rights without a means of enforcement make a mockery of justice".
Those are the ideals of those of us on these Benches, too. I hope that this New Labour Government will transform them into practical reality in the lifetime of this Parliament.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, fellow feeling makes us wondrous wise, and I feel for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Many years ago, when I was a judge of the Queen's Bench Division, I was addressed by a highly eccentric Irish litigant in person as, "your worshipful holiness"! Having read much in the newspaper recently about the Lord Chancellor, I can well understand his anxiety at the prospect of early canonisation.
I respectfully express my deep disappointment at the Lord Chancellor's attitude to civil legal aid and his proposals basically to abolish it. At the end of September last year my noble and learned friend was the Shadow Lord Chancellor. The shadow was to change to substance in less than nine months. He gave the keynote address to the Bar Conference, a "tour d'horizon", as he described it, across legal policy. When I read it I was immensely cheered by his statement:
"let me begin with some basic points. I accept that a Lord Chancellor should fight his corner for justice in Cabinet. He must not be a mere hand-maid of the Treasury".
He spoke at length about legal aid, pointing out that, by its very nature being demand led, it attracted Treasury hostility. But under the heading, "Success of legal aid", he made the observations which have already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Perhaps I may read on from where the noble Lord ended:
"Personal injuries litigation for assisted persons is as a category conspicuously successful. Obviously the greater the success rate the closer the legal aid system can approach self-funding. These success figures tell against any argument that legal aid is generally granted too readily, but it must he remembered that there are a small number of very high cost cases which account for a large proportion of expenditure".
I interpose here to say that I understand that when credit is taken for the costs recovered in successful legal aid cases together with contributions made by the plaintiff to his legal aid, plus the clawback of social security payments, the cost to the Revenue is only approximately £100 million. I say "only" because, relative to the total costs of legal aid—some £1.5 billion—it is a very small proportion.
A little later in his address, the Lord Chancellor went on to say:
"There may however he a case for tightening the merits test so that, for example, legal aid should only he granted if Counsel can advise that on current information the prospects of success are at least 60/40".
I believe that 75 per cent. is quite unrealistic. I only once advised that a case would succeed—and succeed it did, in the county court. When it went to the Court of Appeal, my opponent was led, and the entire case was recast. It bore no relation to the pleadings at all. I protested, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. said, "Oh, we don't worry about that in my court"—and I lost. That cured me once and for all in relation to ever being dogmatic about the prospect of success.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in regard to the difference between complex and simple cases, perhaps I may give him an example of what I thought was a very simple case. I refer to Smouldon v.
56
Whitworth and Nolan, 1997. The plaintiff's neck was broken when a scrum collapsed during an under-19 colts rugby game. The referee was sued for negligence. I should have thought that that was pretty straightforward and simple. It was the first case of its kind. The case as lost at first instance, and on appeal. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused, and there was an appeal against that refusal. When it reached the House of Lords on its fourth hearing, the plaintiff was successful. Now what on earth does one do about the 75 per cent. costs? Are you forecasting for success in the House of Lords, or are you forecasting for success at first instance?
I also wish to refer to another part of my noble and learned friend's remarks in the course of his speech today which has not been mentioned. He said that, one way or another, he was going to bring the legal aid budget into control. This is what he said nine months ago, when he was but a shadow of himself:
"The legal aid budget is currently within estimate and under broad control so there is no immediate imperative for cost-capping".
I fear that, despite the macho image that has recently been spun around the Lord Chancellor and the unparalleled powers that he apparently wields in and out of Cabinet, imposing his authority on waning political heads of departments, he is, when all is said and done, as he said:
"a mere handmaid of the Treasury".
Having listened to or read the speech to which I made reference, who would have thought that a little over a year later he would be proposing to deprive the poorest in society of access to justice by abolishing legal aid and putting in its place a form of speculative litigation, of which those who have been in receipt of legal aid would be unable to take advantage--if "advantage" is the right word.
Speculative litigation has in recent years been covertly a favourite of the Treasury. It was banged firmly on the head by the Royal Commission on Legal Services, presided over by the late Lord Benson. His recommendation was accepted some four years later in a White Paper by the then government. There was a civil justice review within the Lord Chancellor's Department, presided over by a layman, with a majority of laymen on the review body. That review suggested that conditional fees—or contingent fees—should be looked at again.
Two Green Papers were produced by the then Lord Chancellor at the behest of a sub-committee of the Cabinet Economic Committee, chaired by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was a separate Green Paper all on its own about conditional fees, based on the fact that in Scotland conditional fees were permitted but with no uplift. It was proposed that there should be an uplift of a mere 5 per cent. In due course Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act was passed. The uplift proposed by the Lord Chancellor was 10 per cent. It was later proposed to be 20 per cent., which was agreed to by his advisory committee. It was later proposed to be 100 per cent., 10 times the initial figure he had proposed, so keen was the Treasury to ensure that the system could be put into operation,

57
would work and be capable of being extended. That was firmly disagreed to by his advisory committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with wise cynicism, said: "Hey, if you are going to have this new procedure, it should not impinge in any way upon legal aid". As a result, provision was made in Schedule 19 to that Act to the effect that legal aid should not in any way not be granted merely by reason of the fact that the case was equally appropriate to be taken on a conditional fee basis. Now, without prior consultation either with the professions or, more importantly, with the insurance companies, this radical proposal is made. Yet in his speech in Cardiff the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had said:
"The thing to do with change is to manage it through consultation and in the spirit of consultation".
By reason of the inadequacy of consultation, not only has insufficient thought been given to the practicabilities of the proposals but they have proceeded on a false basis.
In his Review of Civil Justice and Legal Aid, published in September, Sir Peter Middleton expressed the following view:
"Since 1995, solicitors and their clients have been allowed to make conditional fee agreements in limited areas of work. Although the results of the research into this experiment have not yet been published, there seems to he a widespread consensus that conditional fees have worked well and achieved their primary purpose of improving access to justice for those who do not qualify for legal aid. It seems to me that the value of conditional fee agreements has now been sufficiently well established. Their scope should therefore he widened to embrace all civil proceedings (although in practice, of course, they are mainly relevant where a money claim is involved)".
Sir Peter Middleton, not being a lawyer, did not appreciate the ethical problems that the extension of conditional fees gives rise to. They are conveniently summarised in Chapter 16 of the report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services to which I referred.
The commission accepted, having consulted widely with the public and the professions, that:
"The fact that the lawyer has a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case may lead to undesirable practices including the construction of evidence, the improper coaching of witnesses, the use of professionally partisan expert witnesses (especially medical witnesses), improper examination and cross-examination, groundless legal arguments designed to lead the courts into error and competitive touting".
The results of the very limited research, to which I shall refer in a moment, were published in September. In his Cardiff speech on 18th October—after the publication of the report—the Lord Chancellor made no reference to it but said:
"Conditional fee agreements have been working well in the personal injury field".
As long ago as 1995 the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee had advised that, given the novelty and potential risk to the litigant inherent in setting up conditional fees agreements, there must be effective monitoring of the results. The committee did not believe that monitoring would be effective if it had to rely on a sample which might well be unrepresentative. Nevertheless, all the advisory committee was permitted to do was to commission the Policies Studies Institute to provide a report on sampling.
58
The institute surveyed 300 firms, all specialists in personal injuries; only 120 responded. Those 120 firms were doing on average less than one conditional fee agreement a month. A figure of 28,000 conditional fee agreements to date has been advanced, though one has yet to see any authoritative source for that. Even if it is accurate, it is a remarkably small figure, bearing in mind that conditional fee agreements are available in personal injury cases for the majority of the population who do not qualify for legal aid. The figure for legal aid certificates issued in personal injury cases over the same period is of the order of 250,000.
Far from confirming that conditional fee agreements have been working well, the following was stated in the report entitled The Price of Success:
"However, on the basis of the evidence so far available, there is potentially cause for serious concern about the way risk is being assessed and uplift calculated.
Fairness of the uplift does, of course, hinge on the accuracy of an original assessment of risk and there are some doubts about the accuracy of risk assessment among solicitors' firms. Information about the outcome of these cases, the damages, costs and fees paid is necessary for a full evaluation whether the uplift is fair. However, on the basis of the evidence currently available there is potentially serious cause for concern about whether the scheme is operating fairly and consistently.
The proportion of conditional fee cases with low estimated chances of success is surprising and raises questions about the way in which solicitors are assessing risks. This could cast doubt over the fairness of the entire scheme".
I am surprised that no reference was made to that work, particularly as the Lord Chancellor, in the debate in 1995 on the order to be made with regard to conditional fees, accepted that 95 per cent. of personal injury cases succeed and that in his view a 20 per cent. uplift was quite sufficient. In fact, the uplift has averaged 42 per cent.
I end by saying this. The present position, put quite bluntly, is that we simply do not know enough about the manner in which conditional fee agreements are operating to switch to a system for which they are primarily a means of funding litigation. Matters are still at an experimental stage. There is insufficient material to make a properly informed decision.
The Lord Chancellor recently left the Bar, where he operated with considerable success. Indeed, he is a self-confessed "fat cat". It would be a tragedy of gargantuan proportions if he should rush in, abolish legal aid and take away from the poor and those suffering from various disabilities the means of access to the courts which have been recently referred to as a fundamental constitutional entitlement.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps a very slim cat can express his sympathy to his brethren and sisters in this House who, whenever there is a debate in regard to legal matters, find themselves afflicted by one lawyer after another delivering at times rather obscure speeches.
I am reminded, if your Lordships will permit it, of a famous story about Serjeant Sullivan, who was known, as the Irish representative that he was at the Bar, as being fearless. He was addressing the Court of Appeal on behalf of a workman who had suffered injuries at

59
work. The presiding judge of the court turned to Serjeant Sullivan, "Has your client never heard of the maxim of volenti non fit injutia?"; to which Serjeant Sullivan replied, "My Lord, it is the sole topic of conversation in the little village of Antrim from which my client comes."
I feel for your Lordships when somewhat complex arguments are advanced in legal language, and I shall endeavour, if my arguments are not forceful, to at least make them easy to understand. But before I say anything, perhaps I may say that my intervention when the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was speaking was meant as a compliment to the very abstruse cases in which he deals.
Percentages are difficult. I can remember when I was a young solicitor practising in the suburbs. It was at a time when, if anybody walked into my waiting room, there were strict instructions that the door was to be locked and so was the door to the few steps that took one up the stairs of that office. However, a gentleman did come to consult me. He told me that his son had been injured while walking on a pavement by a vehicle which had mounted the pavement. Memories of my final examination reared in front of me and I muttered the words, Res ipsa loquitur, saying to him, "My dear sir, you cannot lose. This case speaks for itself; the very facts speak for themselves". On inquiring further into the case a week later, I found that the gentleman whose vehicle had mounted the pavement had had a heart attack and had never had one before. The result was that my 100 per cent. had to be reduced to 0 per cent., since obviously there was no negligence.
These percentages are difficult for any lawyer to work out. One cannot summarise the speeches so far by saying that they were laudatory in favour of the speech made by the noble and learned Lord. But they have not been particularly constructive in regard to the main task that fell to the noble and learned Lord on his accession to office. We have all made remarks in shadow capacities and turned out to be shadows of ourselves later on. I do not believe that that is particularly relevant.
My noble and learned friend faces a dilemma with which we have been trying to deal for years but never really grasped. It is often said in your Lordships' House that justice for the very poor is all right, and that it is all right for the very rich. But what about the people in the middle? They find it impossible to enter into civil suits by virtue of the costs of their own lawyers, let alone the risk of the cost of the lawyers on the other side if they lose. Yet nobody—I say this with deep respect to those who preceded me—dealt with that question at all.
It is a fact that if one was brought up in the generation of lawyers in which I was brought up, the words "maintenance and champerty" would make one tremble. If one was in the generation of lawyers that I had the privilege of being among, questions of conflict of interest made one worry oneself into insomnia. They were matters of grave importance professionally.
But time marches on. In order to make a constructive contribution to your Lordships' debate, I have been trying to think of a solution. If we take for granted that
60
we adopt all that is in the eminent report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and take for granted that we do not make the lawsuits into the nightmares into which they sometimes develop so that they are speedily heard, we still find a gap in our justice system. It is still too expensive for people in the medium income group.
Incidentally, I am indebted to my noble and learned friend for merely quoting some of the average fees of the Bar and not walking into the sphere of a solicitor's income. I know that it was because he realised how much less those incomes are.
My Lords, where do we go from here? I am forced to the conclusion that, unless we walk into the sphere of conditional fee agreements, there is no answer, unless we have a Treasury that is prepared to pour out not only what we are faced with—that is bad enough at £1.4 billion—but also however many billions we would have to pay if we were trying to cover the medium income group.
I have but one concern, having reached that conclusion. It is this. There is no doubt that if we remove from legal aid most of the money and damages claims, there is a gap in the programme. It is the question of the other side's costs if you lose; it is therefore the question of the insurance premium; and it is the question of disbursements that would have to be incurred.
One of the major problems one faces in this context is one that the noble and learned Lord was good enough to mention. I refer to medical negligence claims. This featured in a letter to The Times sent by members of the Bar who specialise in this field. One of the instances of those claims is brain-damaged children, where parents are agonised by the cost of such children during infancy and childhood and who say to themselves, "What will happen when we are no longer here?" That is the field in which the investigatory work to be carried out by psychiatrists, neurologists, and a whole gamut of expertise, has to be gone through with the lawyers before getting to the stage—you do not measure 75 per cent. or 50 per cent.—of being able to make any adjudication on whether the case is likely to succeed.
Are these people to be dumped into walking into one solicitor's office after another, with the solicitor saying. "I am perfectly prepared to take on this case. I would have taken it on a year ago under legal aid; I would have got the preliminary expenses for the investigatory fees paid. But I am afraid that I am not here as a philanthropic institution—I wish I were. I cannot pay £5,000, which may be incurred in all those experts' fees and investigatory work, or £2,000 or £1,000. I have enough hardship as it is".
I say this to the noble and learned Lord—it is said in a letter to The Times this morning, not just from the Bar Council but from the Consumers' Association, the Law Society, and other bodies which are interested on behalf of the man in the street—let there be a trial of this and more research into this. That research is so necessary because it is idle to talk in terms of experience, if I may humbly say this, since 1995 when personal injury cases, European Court cases and some insolvency cases were transferred out of legal aid. We all know that personal

61
injury cases will, once in a lifetime of professional activity, require a deep knowledge of the law. They are factual. They are easy to assess as a rule. If a car bumps into the rear of another car, we all know that the driver of that car must be negligent. These are cases where conditional fee arrangements work very well. There is little expenditure in any event in investigating them. You have only to apply for a police report and take statements.
The noble and learned Lord has—I say this with deep respect—behaved very gallantly in taking on these challenges. They have been largely neglected up until now. I repeat the need for the middle-income group to be allowed to walk through the courts of justice. He has tackled it. I personally admire him for that. I admire him for bringing these matters before the House and before the country. But I ask for further time for this research to be done and I ask for further consideration to be given to the parents of whom I have spoken.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I contribute to the debate not as a lawyer but as someone whose sole concern today is to ensure that the ordinary person, particularly the poor and vulnerable, will benefit from the changes the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor proposes. I want to concentrate particularly on conditional fees and whether they will be an adequate replacement for legal aid.
When I chaired the National Consumer Council, following as I did my noble friend Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes, who is to speak later in the debate, we supported the cautious introduction of conditional fees. Perhaps I can begin with their advantages. They are likely to increase access to justice for those of moderate means by enabling them to limit the costs of losing. And conditional fees are potentially fairer than legal aid to a winning party, who is able to recover costs from an opponent funding the case by a conditional fee agreement. By comparison, legally aided parties do not normally pay the other side's costs.
If, despite all this, I am rather tentative in my hopes for conditional fees, it is for the reasons I now give. I should like to concentrate on three aspects of the proposed changes to conditional fees and legal aid: safety, outcome and quality. On the point of safety, I have before me the model agreement for a conditional fee drawn up by the Law Society and widely used by solicitors. It is written in commendably plain English and every effort has been made by the Law Society to make it understandable. However, the terms of the agreement are fiendishly complicated. I doubt that many non-lawyers would understand them. But even my non-legal mind can see that a lot of things could be going wrong with conditional fee agreements such as people being rejected unfairly or agreements coming to a premature end. And yet, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seems to be proceeding on the assumption that they are trouble free. I wonder by what evidence he judges that.
As far as I am aware, the only research into conditional fee agreements was undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute at a very early stage in the short
62
life of conditional fees. The PSI, mentioned earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, looked at the initial terms of 197 of the first conditional fee agreements, a tiny proportion of the 30,000 or so now in existence. That research only examined the initial terms of the agreements. It did not follow any of these cases to completion. It did not ask any of the clients how they felt the agreement worked in practice. It did not attempt to identify any problems that arose beyond the original calculation of risk and setting of a success fee. The research raised concerns about the ability of solicitors to estimate risk consistently and to charge a success fee that was commensurate with risk. That is understandable in the early days of conditional fees. But it is vital to know that things are improving with time.
The PSI referred specifically in its research report to what further information would be needed in order to support a decision to withdraw legal aid and replace it with conditional fees. It said:
"Until information is available … on outcomes. costs, damages and the eventual fees paid, a full assessment will not he possible. Any plans to extend conditional fees or … to substitute them for legal aid in areas of law where they are available, needs to take into account that there are many unanswered questions".
It appears that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has chosen to proceed without knowing the answers to any of those questions. I hope it is not, but it may now be too late for research into clients' experiences of conditional fees in advance of the withdrawal of legal aid. The objective is to withdraw legal aid from most money and damages claims by the middle of next year. However, it is not too late to begin a programme of monitoring clients' experiences so that they can inform the further development of conditional fees.
I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will commit his department to undertake this vital monitoring; publish the results of that monitoring and take steps to deal with any problems arising from such monitoring.
In my view, one piece of client monitoring is particularly urgently needed. It is vital to know who is being turned down by solicitors for a conditional fee agreement and on what grounds. The fear of consumer groups is that solicitors—who will only be paid when they win a case—will choose the most straightforward cases and reject cases that appear complicated. A case may be entirely winnable, but raise complex issues of law or fact. A complicated case is not necessarily a weak case, yet under the new payment regime, as far as I can see, complexity may become considerably less attractive to solicitors.
In other cases, it may be the client, and not the issues, that is perceived to be the problem. Clients who are not articulate, or whose first language is not English, may not be attractive prospects to solicitors seeking sure, quick or easy winners. Therefore, will the noble and learned Lord ensure that the grounds for refusal of a conditional fee are based on merit and not unduly influenced by other, less justifiable factors? Will he undertake to monitor this aspect of conditional fees particularly carefully?

63
Next I come to outcomes. Compensation in cases involving money and damages claims is carefully calculated to reflect loss. Its objective is, as far as possible, to put people back where they were before they suffered the loss. I am aware that even under legal aid, people are sometimes required to repay money out of their damages to the Legal Aid Board to make up shortfalls in costs recovered from the other side. However, conditional fee agreements introduce new deductions from compensation that could far exceed those deducted under legal aid.
I have a fear on this point and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will put my mind at rest. As far as I am aware, successful clients will still have to make up any shortfall between their own costs and what is recovered from the other side. That will come out of the compensation. In addition, clients will pay a success fee of up to 25 per cent. of the compensation. And, in addition to that, clients will have to pay the cost of the premium to insure against losing, which could run to hundreds or even thousands of pounds, and may not be recoverable from the losing opponent.
My concern is that, with all of these additional deductions, people made vulnerable through loss will not recover enough to have made the ordeal of litigation worthwhile, or to enable them to put the loss behind them. And I have a further concern: that the deductions from compensation could increase over time.
Once the commercial reality of running a legal practice substantially dependent on conditional fees begins to bite, I fear that the success fees demanded by solicitors will start to creep up. At the same time, solicitors will feel under pressure to settle cases as quickly as possible, and certainly at the first sign of difficulty, whether or not an adequate offer of compensation has been obtained. If cases settle quickly, that is often in the client's interests, but not if they settle badly.
My fear is that compensation could be squeezed progressively from various directions: higher and higher success fees; higher and higher insurance premiums from one direction, and lower and lower settlements in another direction. Will the noble and learned Lord reassure us that he will monitor the levels of damages actually recovered by successful litigants under the new arrangements? We need to ensure that the costs of the new payment regime do not outweigh the benefits, particularly for the poorest.
My final point is about quality. Over several years, the Legal Aid Board has been developing an extensive system of franchising for solicitors' firms. While franchising criteria are not yet perfect, they are nonetheless a useful indicator of certain aspects of quality for inexperienced consumers. Holding a franchise suggests that a firm is well-managed, has a reasonable standard of client care, and is experienced in a particular area of law. Once legal aid is withdrawn from all claims for money or damages, franchising for these areas is likely to be abandoned. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us how he intends to replace those signposts which reassure consumers. Perhaps, if the Legal Aid Board paid the insurance premiums for those previously eligible for legal aid, some form of franchising would remain.
64
We all want to improve access to the civil justice system and to get value for the money we spend. At the same time, we must be sure that the changes we make to improve access to justice for the middle income earners offer adequate protection for the poor. When we close one door to the poor, we must ensure that what replaces it is not narrower and less accessible to those who deserve entry.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor has described the dilemma which we face. We clearly cannot allow the costs of legal aid to escalate in the way in which they have done in recent years. On the other hand, the system in which only plutocrats or paupers can litigate is a denial of justice: indeed, it is a blot on our claim to be a fair society. So I welcome most of the proposals which the Lord Chancellor has made and in particular the commitment to block contracting on the basis of fixed fees.
But like previous speakers, I want briefly to discuss the major issue; namely, the basis on which lawyers are to be remunerated. The law is a noble profession and I have no doubt that the majority who practise law are concerned to do the best for their clients and are concerned with justice as well as their own rewards. But lawyers are human and how they behave depends partly on the incentive which the legal system provides. Unfortunately, these incentives do not always encourage them to put their clients, or the interests of justice, first.
The Lord Chancellor's solution of extending no win, no fee would set our legal system on the road towards the American system. That has appalled a number of American lawyers who are only too aware of the low regard in which that profession is held in the United States. I do not believe that American lawyers are individually any less honourable than British lawyers, but the incentives of contingency fees have almost certainly had a corrupting effect. One can see that from the way in which they have given rise to an ever-growing, yet far from effective, concern with codes of ethics.
I quote from an excellent lecture recently given by Professor Colleen Graffi of Pepperdine University in California, who also happens to be a member of the English Bar:
"God was able to set out the code of conduct for all of mankind in Ten Commandments, with no commentary, on two tablets of stone. While in the United States, the American Bar Association's code of conduct for lawyers amounts to over 400 pages of text, comment and footnotes. At that rate Moses would have needed the Rock of Gibraltar and full time professional engravers to set out the rules for just one profession".
In the long run there is bound to be very considerable conflict under a no win, no fee system, between the needs of justice and the interests of lawyers. I quote one example from a speech recently made by the chairman of the Bar Council, Mr. Robert Owen, to the Bar Parliamentary Group:
"What happens when a lawyer, who may be a year or two into the litigation and has committed considerable resources to it, suddenly turns up a document which demolishes the case?"
A conflict is clear.

65
Professor Graffi also points out in her lecture that intensive competition has led to excesses in the adversarial system and a decline of courtesy and civility among lawyers. In my relatively short career at the Bar, when I had to refer to my opponent as "My learned friend", it was rare that he was my friend and there were many cases in which it could in no way be said that he was learned. But the formalities at least acted as a restraint against abuse. Civility will not necessarily last if lawyers market themselves on getting results or through more competitive pricing.
My main objection to the direction in which we appear to be proceeding is that the incentives would tend to turn the law into a business instead of a profession, as they have done in the United States. However, we cannot rest on the status quo. If the only way out which will enable middle income citizens to litigate is to have a conditional fee arrangement, we may have to accept it. However, if I may make a submission "with the greatest respect" (as lawyers tend to say when they intend to show a total lack of respect), the legal profession itself must bear a large part of the blame for the escalation of legal aid costs. That is because the incentives of the present system, whereby lawyers are paid by the hour, also have a harmful effect. At present, there are no incentives whatever to simplify or shorten trials. There is every incentive to complicate proceedings and to draw them out and however dedicated some lawyers—most lawyers—may be to promote justice and not their own earnings, as in America the incentives work in the other way, in the wrong way.
The report produced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, proposes a move towards greater judicial control. I welcome the announcement that that will be in force by April 1999, but fixed fees would still play only a limited role in our system. I know that it goes against national sentiment to suggest that we should learn from other countries and, with some justice, we are proud of our own legal traditions. But it is worth noting that there is a system of fixed fees which seems to work well. I refer to Germany where the national costs of legal aid per head are much lower than those in this country. The ordinary citizen can still afford to litigate and lawyers still seem to make a good living. I know that the German system is very different, with many more judges who are professional judges. We cannot simply transplant the German system even if we want to. But there is no reason why a system of fixed fees should not be more widely applied in Britain.
I realise that the idea of extending the principle of fixed fees has been received by the legal profession with well concealed enthusiasm, but lawyers cannot have it both ways. They rightly argue that no win, no fee provides the wrong incentives and they are right to argue that a system of incentives matters; but the same argument also applies to the system of payment by the hour or day. The taxi meter principle is no way to limit costs; it should be urgently reviewed.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Hoffmann: My Lords, the provision of justice to the people was the noble aspiration of the legal aid scheme introduced in 1949. Justice is a public good of
66
very high importance. But it cannot be pursued regardless of cost because the provision of, for example, education, health care and public housing are also important public goods and justice has to compete with them for resources. Lawyers sometimes speak as if justice was a thing of infinite value; whatever resources are needed to attain it should be provided. I have detected some of that this afternoon. Doctors feel the same about life and health and teachers about education. They all want to do the best possible job and quite naturally feel that the state should provide whatever is necessary. However, it cannot be done: hard choices have to be made and the consequence has to be faced that, inevitably, some people will suffer injustice. It is easy for noble Lords to produce examples of an injustice which may be suffered as a result of any change in the procedures—there are always winners and losers—but there are people who will not get justice and that must be accepted.
A government can do only two things: the first is to try to reduce legal costs overall, so that there is more money to go round. The second is to allocate the available resources so that they go to the more deserving cases rather than the less deserving ones.
The Lord Chancellor's proposals on civil justice and legal aid recognise these truths and I say at once that they seem to me a bold and imaginative attempt to improve matters on both the points which are within the power of government.
Let me first address the question of reducing costs. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has put forward some admirable proposals for simplifying the civil procedure. This will provide a framework within which justice can be delivered at lower cost. It is, however, only a framework. It is one thing to provide a set of rules which will enable lawyers to litigate more cheaply. It is quite another to ensure that they actually do so. The fundamental problem is that under the present system lawyers are paid according to what they do and they decide how much they are going to do. It is therefore in their financial interest to do as much as possible.
It is no moral reflection on lawyers to point this out because this is a case in which the lawyer's self-interest and his duty to his client go hand in hand. The lawyer wants to do the maximum for the client, out of a sense of professional duty and in order to avoid being sued for omitting some step which he might have taken. The same pressures cause the problems of overuse of drugs in the National Health Service. But with lawyers there is the additional factor that they have a personal financial interest in as much as possible being spent on the case. So the result is that rules of court are not the whole answer to reducing the cost of litigation: what lawyers do is driven not only by what the rules say, but by what they can charge for. This is a classic situation in which decisions on the amount of production are wholly in the hands of the producer, who cannot lose by producing

67
too much. Even where the client is paying out of his own pocket, he usually lacks the expertise to exercise proper control. With a fund like the Legal Aid Fund or an insolvent estate or an insurance company, there is even less control because the interest in keeping control is more diffuse.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. I recently attended a conference on the use of information technology in the law. I heard the registrar of the High Court in Liverpool (it may have been Manchester) say that he had introduced a system of video conferencing so that lawyers in London who had cases before him need not send someone up to conduct the case because it could be conducted via the video conference link, thus saving costs. The registrar said that he had been operating the system for six months and that not a single firm had used it—because more could be charged for sending someone up on the train in order to appear at that High Court and then sending them back again.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, recognised the problem and his solution is to have more hands on control by judges. They will take a grip of the case and cut down on unnecessary work. Sir Peter Middleton, in his admirable report on the noble and learned Lord's proposals, is willing to take this proposal on trust and see how it works. I must confess to being rather less sanguine. Judges are good at deciding disputes on arguments presented to them by opposing sides. They are much less good at protecting the interests of people who are not represented before them, like the Legal Aid Fund. It is hard for a judge to go against the arguments of both the parties before him and it is often in the interests of the lawyers on both sides to agree that the case is very difficult and important and needs a lot of money spent on it.
These difficulties arise whenever the cost of litigation is being met out of some fund and it is for that reason that I am equally sceptical about the proposal for a contingency legal aid fund. I think that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's proposals address the problem in the right way, by giving the lawyers a stake in the outcome of the case. It means that when they decide that more work needs to be done, they are potentially spending their own money and must take into account whether the expense is likely to be cost-effective in terms of the prospects of success and the amount likely to be recovered; and they are the people best placed to make an informed judgment on these matters. It seems to me that there is no other way in which principles of cost-effectiveness, or what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, calls proportionality between cost and outcome, can be properly enforced.
Furthermore, the scheme also advances what I have called the second thing which a government can do, which is to ensure that the more deserving cases come to court. Again, it will be the lawyers, those best placed to make a proper judgment, who will decide which cases they will back with their own money and which they will not.
68
I would indeed urge my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to adopt the suggestion of Sir Peter Middleton and take his proposal to its logical conclusion, by allowing the lawyers to agree to act simply for a proportion of the amount recovered. For one thing, that would satisfy the requirement of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that the agreement should be less complicated.
The present scheme, under which they are allowed to charge at a higher rate up to a certain proportion of the amount recovered, still encourages them to do as much work as possible in cases where the recovery is likely to be high and even charging at a higher rate would produce a figure within the maximum proportion of the recovery. I think that it would be in everyone's interest for that incentive to be removed.
It is said that giving lawyers a financial stake in the litigation would tempt them to resort to unethical practices to win. Reference has been made to the practice in the United States of America. I think well enough of our own legal profession to doubt whether this is a serious problem, but in any case if lawyers behave unethically the other side will complain. There will be no collusion as there is now over costs and judges will be able to resolve these questions and impose penalties much more easily than they can keep control of costs. I have no doubt that they are much better at that. That is what they are trained to do.
I turn finally to the distribution of resources and the proposal of the Lord Chancellor that those cases which continue to be funded by legal aid should be certified as having a very high prospect of success.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Does he accept that there is a serious problem for the poor living in slums and areas of deprivation obtaining access to lawyers and being able to assess whether or not conditional fee agreements are in their interests? Does he accept that as regards the poor there are serious concerns about these proposals?
Lord Hoffmann: My Lords, I hope that in those areas the poor will be given assistance perhaps by citizens advice bureaux and so forth to enable them to make an informed choice among the conditional fee agreements that are offered. That is the only way in which some kind of transparency can be introduced into the market as between lawyers offering their services.
I come to the question of certifying those cases which have a high prospect of success for the purposes of legal aid. I applaud this proposal. It is not enough that a case should be, as the lawyers say, arguable or have a realistic prospect of success. There are few cases that are not arguable to a barrister and solicitors who will be instructed if legal aid is granted. Is 75 per cent. too high? There is no logical figure.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend will allow me to intervene. Is it not a question of whether a case is more likely to succeed than not, rather than that it is arguable?
Lord Hoffmann: My Lords, as I understand it the present criterion is that the case is more likely to

69
succeed than not. But there is no logical threshold. Wherever one puts the threshold it is designed to prefer cases with better prospects over those with worse ones. Where one puts the figure depends on how much money is available. If there is plenty of money one can afford 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. The Lord Chancellor must be entitled to say that the resources at his disposal require 75 per cent. Critics say that means that cases that might have been successful under the previous system will now not be fought. That is quite right. That is the inevitable consequences. However, that is inherent in any system. Your Lordships would be wrong to compare the proposals of the Lord Chancellor with an idealised system in which everyone got his desserts. The question is whether it is likely to be better than what we have now, and in my view it certainly is.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, does he agree that there is a very marked difference between the English and American systems? This relates to the suggestion, following the proposal of Sir Peter Middleton, of a contingency fee where a percentage of the damages is taken. In America, juries realise that that is the system and they lay off for it; in other words, if the damages are x they add on y knowing that that represents what the lawyer should get. Here the damages will continue to be calculated as to what is fair compensation. If one takes the case of a child who has been badly injured, the figures will be worked out so that the child can be compensated with regard to future care and so on. All that money is calculated on the basis of the child's need. If one has a contingency arrangement 30 or 40 per cent. of that will go to the lawyer. Therefore the child or any other injured party will be substantially uncompensated. That can change only if the judges here lay off for the contingency figure, which from a forensic point of view would in my view be most unjust visa á vis the defendant.
Lord Hoffmann: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner is quite right. Figures for damages awarded by juries in America are vastly inflated. Indeed, that is probably one of the temptations to unethical practices which exist in the United States. It would be difficult to resist behaving unethically if the temptation was to win a case which would result in one gaining 40 per cent. of ş200 million. As a result of these proposals those children who receive damages—I include in that any other litigant—will get less because they have to pay part of the damages to their lawyers. On the other hand, those people who previously could not go to law at all will get something. There are winners and losers.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I begin by welcoming the important and principled start of the Lord Chancellor in reforming legal aid. He is absolutely right in identifying the escalation of costs to the public purse. It is a source of shame among many of us in the legal profession that there are individual lawyers earning £200,000, £300,000, £400,000 and even £500,000 per annum out of the legal aid fund. It is nothing short of a
70
scandal that remuneration paid for by the taxpayer should reach such levels. Undoubtedly, changes must be made. I am delighted that the Lord Chancellor has repeated his willingness to enter into constructive dialogue with the legal profession and any interested parties in pursuit of reform.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, reminds us that legal aid was invented by the post-war Attlee government. It was not created so that lawyers could make money out of human misery; it was about servicing need. That great Labour government understood all about social exclusion. It knew that our legal system was like the Ritz. It was of the highest quality and was open to all as long as they could pay. The principle at the heart of the system which was then created was the belief that access to justice had to be available to all and that it was one of a decent society's objectives. The post-war government believed with a passion that the poor were just as entitled as the rich to legal remedies and something had to be done to give meaning to that belief.
When I was a small child my mother, a doughty working-class woman in Glasgow, was struck by a falling slate. It fell from the roof of a tenement building on which men were working. Her head was split open, her eye was damaged and she was out of action for several weeks. I remember well that concerned neighbours advised her to see a solicitor. But the concept of legal aid was still very new and even she, the doughty woman that she was, was fearful of stepping into a lawyer's office. She was worried that it would involve an outlay of money, which was all too sparse.
Those who are not well off do not go willingly to law even today. They are afraid of the legal system because they do not believe that it belongs to them. The challenge of ensuring that the law is not the privilege of the rich remains with us. We should be as clear now as the Attlee government were then that making the law available to all is one of the measures of a just society. The Lord Chancellor will be as concerned as that government to ensure that the principles of access to justice for all should inform whatever changes take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to fat cats. I speak as perhaps one of the leanest lawyer-cats in this House. I have spent the whole of my professional life doing legal aid work—and not of the overpaid fraud trial variety. I believe that I speak from a position of knowledge when I say that there are many solicitors and barristers who are deeply committed to representing those who have the least voice in our society. They are not lawyers who make very much money but they believe in liberty and justice—lawyers who seek to expand the frontiers of the law in a changing world. They are lawyers who act for poor litigants in actions against public authorities where their rights have been wickedly abused.
Those lawyers will be greatly reassured by the commitment to them and the work that they do of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Those lawyers are probably not in the least self-interested or self-serving when they express their anxieties about a

71
new form of legal aid. They ask that the noble and learned Lord consider, in the Government's review, the maintenance of legal aid for poor litigants who want to find out whether they have a case. That is the exploratory funding to which some other speakers have referred. The opinion of an expert is sometimes necessary before it is possible to evaluate whether someone has a good case. That was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mishcon.
Noble Lords may feel that lawyers should be prepared to invest money in the potential return referred to in the Lord Chancellor's opening speech. However, there are lawyers whose firms are run wholly on legal aid and who are in communities such as those described by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. They may be in slum areas. There are lawyers whose commitment is real and where there is no slack in the system that they operate. Their profits are marginal. Those tight margins would not allow them to put forward the sums of money which may seem meagre but which would be considerable for them. So we must be concerned. I know that the Lord Chancellor will be concerned to ensure that such firms of solicitors are protected and that there is legal provision for the type of client that I have described.
Noble Lords will be aware that the public funding of dentistry is supposed still to exist. Yet it is hard for us to find a dentist who still performs under the NHS. There are good reasons for that. Many would say it is because of the way the cuts have taken place. It would be terrible to see that happen in relation to legal provision.
Among the lawyers of whom I speak there is also concern that a poor client might have a reasonable case but that damages would not be at a level which would make the case a commercial proposition for the lawyer. The sums involved may be only £5,000, £10,000 or £20,000. The rewards for the lawyers would not be enough to justify the risk of taking on such cases. So, for example, it may not be worth a solicitor taking on the case of someone like my mother with her head injury because the compensation may not be great enough for him or her. It would have been significant for my mother.
The market does not work well for the poorest in our society. I was recently involved in a review of the availability of further education. Market principles have been introduced into the running of colleges. What has happened is that the colleges pursue the obvious student—the student who is likely to succeed easily. Many of the students who are fearful of continuing education, who find it harder to get in and who have problems about staying in are those that the colleges do not feel worth pursuing because of the resources involved in keeping those students on board. I ask my noble and learned friend to consider ways in which people might fall through any new system and to seek to prevent that happening.
I am especially pleased that my noble and learned friend recognises the importance of ensuring that public interest cases are funded properly. It is crucial that
72
public servants do not abuse the law, hold themselves above it and cock a snook at the citizens. It is clearly in the public interest that officials should be accountable.
In the set of chambers in which I work, a significant number of actions over the years have been taken against police officers, prison officers, immigration officers and other officials for abuse of their power. Knowing that remedies may be sought in the courts is one of the ways of keeping certain kinds of policemen honest, I am afraid.
The problem I raise with the House is not that the plaintiffs in cases alleging police assault are invariably lying. They are often people with previous convictions. They may often be people with mental illness or drug problems. They are not people who will be readily insured. I ask that that is taken into consideration when the Lord Chancellor considers reform.
Those are not people who are readily believed. It would be difficult for lawyers taking on such cases to say that they fulfilled the 75 per cent. chance of success criterion. Yet those people can often be telling the truth about having been beaten up in police custody. They would never be accepted on a conditional fee basis. There is a famous case of which most criminal lawyers are aware. It is known about in the civil courts also. It is the case of a man with previous convictions called Treadaway. He was taken in by the West Midlands police, whose behaviour became somewhat notorious, as the House will be aware, in cases throughout the 1970s and 1980s. He was taken into custody in an inquiry about an armed robbery. He was subjected to what became known as the "bagging" procedure. A plastic bag was put over his head until he was on the point of losing consciousness. He ended up confessing to a crime. He was convicted. He sought to take legal action against the officers in the case.
That case was successful. It was tested to a high level by Mr. Justice McKinnon. Those police officers were found by him to have behaved appallingly against a man with a criminal background by forcing him to confess to a crime which, on balance, it could not be accepted had been committed. The conviction was overturned ultimately in the Court of Appeal. That case pointed out how vulnerable people in police custody can be. It is crucial that legal aid be maintained for such cases—cases against public officials and arms of the state where people might be abusing power.
The black community is worried because a number of the most prominent cases in recent years relating to police assault have involved young black men being arrested unfairly, manhandled and assaulted by police officers. If legal aid were not available in such cases, the public interest would not be served.
I am sure that I share with many members of the legal profession a welcome for the idea of a public interest fund: for example, for test cases, although I hope that legal aid will be maintained for the kind of cases that I have described. However a public interest fund might be invaluable for taking on test cases of public significance, such as cases involving informed consent or the sterilisation of the mentally ill. It is important for the medical profession to know what are the rules. Clarification of the law is always to the public benefit.

73
If my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is seeking new ways of finding money for the Legal Aid Fund, which would keep the Treasury happy, I shall make a number of suggestions. The idea arose in the past but it has not been considered recently. Solicitors' client accounts earn interest. When people pay money to a solicitor during the preparation of a case that money goes into an account. It creates interest, which could make a sizeable contribution to the Legal Aid Fund. In New Zealand and Australia the interest on solicitors' client accounts is used for the furtherance and development of the law.
I have a friend who is a judge in New Zealand. He was in this country recently and he explained to me that that money was used for conferences to advance a legal issue. There is a precedent for such a use of that interest in that the Bank of England is funded by the interest on deposits made by commercial banks. That is one of the reasons why the wine is so good if one goes to a dinner or another function at the Bank of England. Will the noble and learned Lord consider whether the interest on solicitors' client accounts can be used as I suggest; that is, to supplement the Legal Aid Fund and to ensure that it is maintained at a level which will satisfy the anxieties expressed by committed lawyers?
Lord Hacking: My Lords, will the noble Baroness kindly give way? I am a practising solicitor and I may be able to help her on the issue of interest on client accounts. That interest belongs to the client.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, but why can it not be used? It is used in New Zealand and Australia where people pay over money, as do any of us when, for example, we have builders working for us; we pay over a contribution for the work to be done. We never ask that the interest accruing on the money might be paid back to us. I suggest that we should look at ways in which other jurisdictions make use of the money creatively in furtherance of the law.
Noble Lords may ask why rich litigants should contribute in that way to their poorer brothers. I suggest that there are good reasons. The majority of the developments of the legal system occur on legal aid. Many of the beneficiaries are involved in commercial cases. The common law and commercial litigants are able to take advantage of the law as it is developed under legal aid. It is not inappropriate for client accounts to be used in the way that I suggest for the benefit of the law as a whole.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will do as was suggested in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf; that is, to require judges to hold the reins tighter in the management of cases. Furthermore, it might be worth considering the appointment of an inspector of courts who would be able to control the profession in its use of legal aid. There is too much double manning—of leading counsel with juniors in cases where it is wholly unnecessary. There is a protraction of cases, to which other noble Lords have referred. Perhaps we should even consider a right of action by legal aid boards against lawyers whose
74
careless advice causes the continuation of funding beyond a certain point. That would certainly sharpen legal acuity.
I submit to this House that priority must be given to access to justice. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been creative and has expressed his willingness to listen to those who have ideas to offer. Those opportunities should be seized by everyone to engage in fruitful dialogue because the justice system is essential to the well-being of this nation.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, having listened to every speech in the debate, I reflect that we are living in unusual days. I was only a schoolboy, as was the noble and learned Lord although perhaps a little younger, when the post-war Labour Government introduced their great social reforms of the late 1940s. Of those, undoubtedly the most important were the foundation of the National Health Service and the legal aid scheme. In today's parlance, those important measures provided access to healthcare and to justice for every citizen in the land, from the poorest to the richest. Both are close to celebrating their fiftieth birthdays—the legal aid fund in 1999—and both have been subject to such massive changes that their original forms are hardly recognisable.
I use those bold words because at the heart of the noble and learned Lord's proposal on legal aid is the removal from the legal aid net, subject to consultation. of all money and damages claims from next April. I use those bold words because the noble and learned Lord has described legal aid as becoming a leviathan with a ferocious appetite That is not a description that one of his predecessors as Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, would have recognised when he introduced the legal aid scheme into your Lordships' House in the 1940s. If it had been my government which introduced such a measure, as opposed to the noble and learned Lord's, there would have been an uproar.
During my early years at the Bar, more than 50 per cent. of my practice was under legal aid. It worked reasonably well: there was access to justice; good co-operation between the legal profession and legal aid; we accepted fees which were usually half the market rates; and no great excesses arose. Certainly, we were not in receipt of the riches to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
At that time, I served on an area legal aid committee in Leicester. I believed it important that I should do so. The committee met once a month and we did not hesitate to return papers to the applicant or his solicitors when we believed that a prima facie case had not been made out or to reject the application for legal aid when there was not sufficient justification.
The question which must be asked—and many questions must be asked about the proposals—is: what has gone wrong? The issues are not in the control of lawyers. There has been an increase in the range of civil claims; for example, in the field of negligence. We have become a more litigious society. Court proceedings—

75
functioning, I emphasise, under increasing volumes of paper—have not been functioning so well and legal aid has been too easily granted. It is not that the threshold has been too low, but that the test has not been properly applied. Your Lordships may have read about the extraordinary applications made in the past few years to the Legal Aid Board by defendants who claim that bevies of plaintiffs should not have been granted legal aid, in response to which the board withdrew the legal aid certificates.
I believe that our starting point is one of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor over the problem that he faces and his proposals to deal with the shortcomings in the civil justice system and the legal aid scheme. I read with great care the noble and learned Lord's speech to the Law Society on 18th October. I also read with great care the speech made in another place by his Parliamentary Secretary when it held a debate on these proposals on 21st November. I entirely agree with all noble Lords who have spoken that justice should be accessible to everyone, not just to the very rich and the very poor.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord has begun with sound proposals relating both to the civil justice system and to legal aid. As regards the latter, a number of sensible proposals emanate: for instance, contracting for legal services and fixed fees. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, will take pleasure in that, although I, as a member of the Bar of the State of New York and a practising solicitor, did not take pleasure from some of the noble and learned Lord's remarks.
Other sound proposals were the application of quality standards, monitoring predictions on the opinions of merit, the merits test and that more hard reasoning should support claims. It was good to hear that we have a listening Government and that the noble and learned Lord intends to continue to consult with the professions and other interested parties. Congratulations should be extended to him on his conversion—I do not describe it as a Pauline conversion—as regards the conditional fees scheme, remembering the reservations which he expressed in this House when those proposals were put through by my government.
So far so good, but real concerns have been expressed. Your Lordships have expressed them during the course of the debate; for instance, the merits test of 75 per cent., the difficulties over the funding of disbursements and insurance, particularly in medical negligence cases, and the substitution of legal aid by the conditional fees scheme. I need not enlarge upon the comments made about the merits test of 75 per cent., although the noble and learned Lord received some support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. However, I wish to enlarge upon the problem of funding disbursements and insurance.
When the Government have been pressed on that aspect, the answer has been given, certainly by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the solicitors can fund those disbursements; they can fund the premiums on the insurance. I have certain personal experience of that. At the moment I am supporting a case being brought by
76
my son who was grievously injured in a motorcar accident in 1991. Without going into the details—it is a brain injury case—I can tell your Lordships that the cost of the medical reports and the expert witnesses for that car accident have now exceeded £25,000. That litigation is not taking place in England; it is taking place in New South Wales. Just transfer that type of expenditure on to any law firm, whether it be a country, provincial or London law firm and one can work out what the law firm would have to fund if it had 10 or 20 such cases.
The real worry in relation to the substitution of the legal aid fund is not as regards the introduction of the conditional fee scheme but as regards the cutting off of the legal aid fund. Sir Peter Middleton, in his report at paragraph 5.48 stated:
"My preferred approach, therefore, would be to allow the Legal Aid Board to consider, as part of the merits test for granting legal aid, whether a case was suitable for funding by some form of private arrangement".
Therefore, the crucial question which we should address is not the extension of the legal aid fund but whether, as of 1st April, it should be substituted by the conditional fee scheme.
Those concerns have been expressed in many quarters. I chaired a meeting in your Lordships' House which was addressed by the Law Society, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association, Shelter, the Legal Action Group and the Advice Services Alliance. Out of those, only one represented a legal group and the Bar was not represented. At that meeting, all the concerns expressed in your Lordships' debate were expressed.
Subsequently, I have received representations, as, I know, have other noble Lords, from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Law Centres Federation and Justice. Again, all took up those concerns. I was minded to read from the Justice report but since one of the authors of that report, the noble Lord. Lord Goodhart, is about to address your Lordships, I shall not do so but I hope he will.
The noble Lord is receiving the same representations. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sums up at the end of the debate, we should all like to know what heed he is taking of those representations.
What about other questions? How are the issues relating to disbursements and insurance being addressed? What are the precise arrangements for that agreement with the insurance industry about which the noble and learned Lord expressed pleasure? What form does it take? Is it binding? Are the premiums affordable? What are the experiences which have been gained so far in relation to the conditional fee scheme? Where is the evidence? How does the noble and learned Lord propose to deal with public interest cases? Why are there no proposals for mediation, conciliation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution, although those have been extremely successful and highly recommended by that noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf? Above all, why is the noble and learned Lord proposing to substitute the legal aid system with the conditional fee scheme rather than following the good advice of Sir Peter Middleton; namely, that before you can receive a grant of legal aid you must satisfy the

77
Legal Aid Board that alternative funding is not available? Of course, that would require a statutory change because under the present arrangements that is not a test which can be applied.
In posing those questions, these words of the noble and learned Lord at his Law Society speech ring in the ears: "If you act in haste, you repent at leisure". Of course, like his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must work with the Treasury, but to dismantle the legal aid system to satisfy the Treasury accounts of next year or the year after is an act in haste which we shall all repent.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I share the concern expressed by almost all noble Lords who have spoken this evening in relation to the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the reform of the legal aid system. In particular, I share the concern expressed by many noble Lords as regards the over-hasty substitution of conditional fee agreements (or CFAs) for legal aid in money claims.
CFAs have advantages; they appear to be working in personal injury cases. They are undoubtedly here to stay. I accept that and, to some extent, welcome it because I believe they provide a facility for those who are just above the level of legal aid which has not previously existed.
However, personal injury cases and in particular, motor accident cases have special factors which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, make them particularly suitable for CFAs. First, it is clear that there has been an accident. Secondly, that accident is almost always someone's fault. There may be the occasional accident like a tree falling on top of your car in a high gale which is not due to the fault of any human being, but that is quite exceptional. Thirdly, in motor accident cases which result in personal injury, there will have been a police investigation which will have helped very greatly to establish whose fault it is. The result is that the plaintiff can obtain insurance against liability for the defendant's costs for a fairly modest premium.
In other types of cases, that is much more unlikely to happen. Let us take as an example, as have many other noble Lords this evening, the case of medical negligence. In that case, one must start by asking the question: has there been an accident at all? It is true that the treatment or operation that the patient has undergone may not have worked, but that does not of itself show that there has been anything which could be described as an accident, let alone establish that someone is at personal fault for it.
Therefore, in such cases and other cases of professional negligence in other professions, a much more elaborate preliminary investigation is needed and at the preliminary stage at least, there is much less certainty of success. It is not at all clear in such cases that conditional fee agreements will work; nor is it clear that an acceptable insurance product can be provided in such cases for an acceptable premium. Whatever the insurance companies promise now, we must remember
78
that their promises in cases of this kind are untested. We wonder what premiums will be charged in a few years' time.
Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider trying proposals for a contingency legal aid fund (or CLAF). CLAF is not a new idea. It was first proposed by Justice in our report on motor accident cases in 1966. That proposal was followed up by a report published by Justice in 1978. I was chair of the working party which drafted that report. Another small working group of Justice, of which I am a member, has looked again recently at our proposals and confirmed our support for them, although with a modification to which I shall turn later. CLAF is indeed supported rather strongly by the Bar Council.
So, for the benefit of those who are not familiar with it—and that may include a number of lawyers—what is CLAF and how does it work? The basic idea is that a potential plaintiff with a money claim (and, like CFAs, this will work only where there is a money claim), applies to the fund for help. If the application is accepted, the fund will pay the plaintiffs legal expenses in the same way as legal aid does at present. If the plaintiff loses, the fund will pay the defendant's costs. If the plaintiff wins, or gets damages in an out of court settlement, the defendant will pay to the fund the costs that it has incurred on behalf of the plaintiff. The fund will also be entitled to a deduction from the damages payable to the plaintiff in the same way as a solicitor is entitled to deduct a success fee from damages under a conditional fee agreement.
The original Justice proposal was that the deduction should be a specified proportion of the damages awarded to the plaintiff. At that time there were no CFAs. Our revised proposal, in the light of the existence of CFAs, is that the deduction should be calculated as a percentage of the costs incurred on the plaintiff s behalf in the same way as CFAs. That percentage need not be fixed as the same percentage for all cases, but can be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, one might ask why a CLAF rather than a CFA? The latter has the advantage of simplicity. A potential client can go to a solicitor, agree a success fee—I was going to say "negotiate", but it is unlikely that much negotiation will take place—then the solicitor arranges the insurance policy and he can get on with it. That is true enough, but I also suggest to your Lordships that CLAF has significant advantages over CFAs. For example, CLAF has advantages for solicitors. Many solicitors would prefer the certainty of getting their normal fees to the risk of getting no fee at all if they enter into a CFA. That is especially true of smaller firms which will not have enough CFA work on a regular basis, to enable them to know how accurately to calculate the risk, and which do not have regular contact with insurers.
CLAF has advantages for the administration of justice. Lawyers will not be at risk of losing their fees if they lose the case. It removes the risk that, for example, a lawyer may be tempted, as has been suggested, to withhold the disclosure of damaging material which emerges at a late stage in the

79
proceedings. At the same time, the fund can negotiate fixed-fee contracts to ensure that the problems quite rightly pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, are held in check. Finally, CLAF has advantages from the point of view of the client. He will not have to pay the up-front costs of preliminary investigations or of an insurance policy which, certainly in medical negligence cases, are not only enough to put off those who currently qualify for legal aid but also many who do not qualify for it.
Will CLAF be more expensive than CFAs? There is no reason why it should be. It is true that there is the cost of administering the fund which would have to be met, but the wider pooling of risk, the greater experience of risk analysis and the absence of need to buy an insurance policy from a profit-making insurance company, should offset that fact. CLAF is, of course, intended to be self-financing. It could be administered by the Legal Aid Board or perhaps contracted out, as the administration of legal aid originally was, to the Law Society or some other organisation. The most that would be required in terms of finance would be a possible short-term loan or guarantee to cover payments that would have to be made out of the fund before the success fees started coming in.
I do not share the fears expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his speech to the Law Society conference; namely, that if CLAF and CFAs are in competition, the latter would necessarily cream off the stronger cases. It is possible that CFAs would become the predominant method of financing certain types of case, in particular road accidents and other straightforward personal injury cases. However, in others, such as medical and other professional negligence cases, I believe that most potential litigants would actually prefer CLAF to a CFA. CLAF is not a panacea. However, I believe that it is an idea well worth trying. Indeed, an experimental scheme in Hong Kong has worked so well that it has been considerably expanded.
In his speech to the Law Society conference in Cardiff, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor promised to consider CLAF. He repeated that promise today. I ask him to do so and to take the next step; that is, to set up a pilot scheme, perhaps on a regional basis in some part of the country, for an experiment in CLAF to see whether it will work. I believe that he may well be pleasantly surprised by the result of that experiment.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, there has not been one speaker who has addressed your Lordships today—and none, I believe, who is to follow—who has not put access to justice high among the social goods. However, as has been pointed out, that is not alone. There is access to health; there are such fundamental matters as national security, both external and internal; there is our duty to the poorest of our fellow citizens, and so on. Indeed, one could go on almost infinitely.
80
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor hastened to say in his opening remarks that his scheme was not Treasury driven. I do not believe that it would require an apology if it were. I say that because, unless accounts are kept in the counting house, there will be no bread and butter to eat in the parlour. The figures that have been given show that by 1992 the Legal Aid Fund was utterly out of control. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, as Lord Chancellor, brought in measures to curb it. They mainly—I believe almost exclusively—went to the eligibility test. As your Lordships have been reminded, when the legal aid scheme was set up there were two tests. The first was that of eligibility—in other words, you had to show that you need support to have access to legal aid. The second was a merits test. The case had not to be, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann seemed to think, merely arguable; it had to be the sort of case which was worth presenting to the court and was more likely to succeed than not.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was furiously attacked on that occasion. It was in a debate which took place on 3rd February 1993, initiated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who presently sits on the Woolsack. I took note of some of the terms that were used, not all of them by my noble and learned friend. For example, it was said that the proposals "would destroy access to justice"; that they were "a disaster" and, indeed, an "outrage". Reference was also made to the "madness" of the scheme.
It would be naïve politics to suppose that the invective of opposition is automatically transposed into the policy of government. In fact, finding that legal aid costs have increased despite the measures of his predecessor, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has gone on to further them. As I understand it, the main components are threefold: first, contracting for legal aid services from the professions; secondly, upping the merits test to require a 75 per cent. chance of success; and, thirdly, mopping up by a comprehensive no win, no pay scheme, thereby pushing further the proposals of the noble and learned Lord's predecessor.
As regards the contracting, I wish to ask only one question. Much depends on the terms and particularly the length of the contract. Is it likely to lead to a scheme of public defenders? That would, I think, be regarded very much askance by all who are conversant with the criminal system. That is all I have to say about the first item.
The second item, a 75 per cent. chance of success, eliminates an enormous tranche of those who were previously eligible; all those, in other words, whose chance of success was better than 50:50, whose case was more likely to succeed than to fail. They will have to show instead a 75 per cent. chance of success. I agreed with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and I believe others. I cannot remember ever having quoted a percentage figure. One generally said that there was a good or a reasonable chance of success. One was warned against the rare cases where a client had been told that he was sure to

81
win and the case was infallibly lost. Therefore, there is an enormous number eliminated from access to justice through legal aid.
When my noble and learned friend's scheme comes into operation, there must be only a few "middle incomes" left who would be eligible. How does my noble and learned friend propose to deal with the vast numbers of "middle incomes" that the Rushcliffe Committee counted on bringing under the legal aid scheme—legal aid which had previously been available only under the forma pauperis' scheme and the Poor Prisoners Defence Act, on which many young counsel cut their teeth, and sometimes no doubt a client was lucky enough to light upon an Erskine, a Clarke or, dare I say it, an Alexander, a Gardiner or a Baroness Mallalieu? I am being invidious as I have missed out the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. There was luck in the draw but some were lucky. All those who badly needed it obtained the service. However, my noble and learned friend proposes to deal with all those who are now included—and will be excluded—by a generalised no win, no pay scheme.
The first thing to say is that it reaches only money and property cases. The second is that the cost of insurance has been dealt with and is likely to be far more discouraging than any legal aid contribution that there has been in the past. The third thing is that it is not only those financial and technical matters that should concern your Lordships. We have had examples of no win, no pay. My noble and learned friend says that the scheme so far has not thrown up examples of abuse. However, as has been pointed out, it has been barely tested. Moreover, we know what it has led to in America. There are grave signs that it may go the same way here. An advertisement caught my eye which asked people if they had any complaints about medical treatment or mistreatment in a hospital. They were advised to communicate that with the advertising solicitor.
Moreover, in my time in practice there were one or two who practised no win, no pay, although that was quite unprofessional. I remember one member of the Bar who was habitually instructed by his brother, a solicitor. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will immediately recognise the malign pair. They were up to every mischief that could be performed in a court of law. On one occasion counsel was rebuked for telling a jury that the defendant was insured. Counsel said blandly, "I did not know that that was illegal. I thought it was merely a gross breach of professional etiquette". Do we really want that? Are we not in danger of that? Of course, little has gone wrong so far because the members of the legal profession have been brought up in a tradition that discountenanced that sort of behaviour where the financial result to the practitioner depended on his winning the case. But it is a serious temptation to people whose career might be in balance, who perhaps have calls on their finances which they must meet, and so on. It is dangerous.
That process might be acceptable if it were the only way of plugging this enormous gap that has been created by my noble and learned friend and his predecessor and indeed by ordinary economic events—affluence moving
82
people out of the scope of eligibility. If that were the case we might be prepared to accept it, however reluctantly, but it is not the only expedient.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, whom I am glad to follow, has explained in detail and with great clarity the advantage of the Contingency Legal Aid Fund. I urged it on your Lordships when we were discussing legal aid in the context of the Human Rights Bill. It has now been put forward with great authority and cogency. At one time it was thought by the Royal Commission that it was not viable: there would be too many bad cases and too few good cases. But now we have all those cases ranging from a 50 per cent. to a 75 per cent. chance of success. Many cases are likely to succeed; they will be well worth taking on. It would be an affront to shut those people out from access to justice. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned, the scheme has been tried out in Hong Kong. It was a success and has been expanded there. It has also been practised in two Australian states. There, too, I think that it has been successful.
In summary, I am entirely with my noble and learned friend in his aim to contain the legal aid budget. But I have the deepest trepidation about his main theme; namely, demanding an eligibility test of 75 per cent., and having recourse to plugging the gap from the no win, no pay scheme, with all its disadvantages and dangers. I urge my noble and learned friend to consider seriously the criticisms of the no win, no pay scheme that have been made overwhelmingly today from all parts of the House and instead to consider the scheme propounded by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, when I put my name down to take part in the debate, I had intended to make a short speech concentrating on a single aspect of the Government's proposals to curtail, if not to withdraw completely, legal aid from most civil cases. However, your Lordships will be pleased to hear that in the light of the opening speech by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, it will be possible to shorten my remarks even further.
I hope that I am right in understanding that legal aid will continue to be available to eligible applicants charged with criminal offences. But for a few moments I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships to those persons with one foot on either side of the line dividing criminal and civil proceedings.
What will be the situation when prisoners, many of whom are indigent, bring civil actions by way of judicial review seeking remedies for wrongful decisions or policies relating to their detention in custody? We must remember that not all such applicants will have been convicted of a crime. The growth in the remand population means that a substantial proportion are held pending trial, or sentence or awaiting deportation. Civil actions are brought by prisoners on various grounds. Their challenges may include the lawfulness of detention or continued detention after the expiry of the penal term. We must expect a considerable growth area

83
in that category in the light of the extended sentences which are forecast in the recently published Crime and Disorder Bill.
Litigation may arise also from conditions in custody, prison rules or regulations, or many administrative decisions made by officials. Some of the grounds for complaint will fall within the ambit of the convention rights under the European convention which are due to become part of our domestic law when the Human Rights Bill is enacted, as it will be shortly.
I had intended to raise the funding of civil cases brought by prisoners claiming violations of convention rights after incorporation during the Committee stage of the Human Rights Bill. In the event, I was unable to be present when the amendments on legal aid were finally reached; but I gave notice that I intended to raise the matter again today. Although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke rapidly in the early part of his speech—he had much ground to cover—I believe I heard him accurately to say that cases brought in the domestic courts under the Human Rights Bill when enacted will be subject to legal aid. If that is so, I am delighted to hear that the Government have avoided what would have been the illogicality of one procedure at Strasbourg—British prisoners, having exhausted their domestic rights, take their case before the Commission and Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg where there is a limited amount of legal aid payable once a case has been found to be admissible—and another procedure, and a less favourable one, in our own courts.
At a later stage, if not when the noble and learned Lord winds up the debate, I hope that it will be possible for the Lord Chancellor to confirm that consistency with the Strasbourg procedures will be maintained by not requiring an unsuccessful applicant to contribute to the costs of the Government against whom he has made a charge of breach of a convention right.
That leaves us with the prison litigant who cannot bring his or her claim within the enumerated convention rights. But in the light of the Lord Chancellor's mildly encouraging comments about public interest cases—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Since he presses upon the House with great force, and in my respectful view with reason, the need to ensure that we have the same advantages in our systems in Strasbourg, is the noble Lord aware that one of the advantages of the Strasbourg system is that an unsuccessful applicant does not have to pay the Government's costs? Therefore, there is no risk as to the other side's costs in those proceedings. That is not the case under our domestic proceedings.
Lord Windlesham:: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point. I had thought of making it, but in the interests of brevity I have not done so. I am glad that he has placed it so clearly on record. Therefore there is this remaining sub-group, the status of which will be the subject of a consultation process forecast for the New Year.
84
Finally, based on many years' experience, I am well aware, as are others in the House, that prisoners are not the most popular of litigants. But effective redress against the abuse of arbitrary power must not be jeopardised by these reforms. I am mildly encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his opening remarks. I hope that that spirit will be preserved in this instance throughout the consultation procedure and the legislation which will follow it next year.
7.49 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, as one of, I think, only three speakers in the debate who have previously been Members of another place, my experience of the law as a Member of Parliament may be a good deal less favourable than that of a number of people who have spoken who happen to be professionally involved in the law. Indeed I remember, on many occasions, deeply confused constituents coming to me who, in some cases, had paid £50 or £100 which they could not afford in order to have a letter written to a Minister by a solicitor which could have been written by their MP for no more than the cost of a stamp, if that.
I remember repeatedly coming across the extraordinary degree of illiteracy in relation to the law that exists in this country because we teach nothing of it in our schools and little enough in our colleges, and therefore the way in which many of my poorest constituents were open to exploitation. I found the profession deeply divided between those who were all too ready to exploit the ignorance of those I represented (and of myself) as compared with the handful of lawyers who devoted themselves a great deal of the time to some of the most tremendously serious cases I have ever encountered—and still do: cases of women, for example, gaoled by lower courts because they have failed to pay debt, who are then taken out of custody only as a result of a judicial review, usually brought by a lawyer who is paid little or nothing for his services. So I see the profession as profoundly divided. I have considerable sympathy with the phrase used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He described the present system as, "too expensive and too exclusive". He is right in saying that substantial reforms need to be made.
Perhaps I may draw a momentary comparison with the other service which is publicly funded and which we discussed today, the National Health Service. It is less clear to me that the professional interests of those in the health service have been as predominant in terms of the way in which the money flowing to that service has been used as have the interests of at least some in the legal profession. I apologise for putting it so strongly, but I was reminded time and again of the saying of Anatole France that,
"The law in its majesty forbids the rich and the poor alike from stealing bread or sleeping under bridges".
That saying rings through my head from that day to this. As the House will appreciate, I have no financial interest in this debate.

85
I welcome particularly the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about fixed fee contracts. I am delighted that so many noble Lords and noble Baronesses have recognised the force of that argument. Listening to the noble and learned Lord introducing the debate, I began to wish that he might relent for a short while and regulate rewards in the City, which perhaps require his ministrations even more than the legal profession. I welcome that measure. I welcome, too, the noble and learned Lord's efforts in trying to bring about an extension of the conditional fees, at least in those areas where cases are straightforward and where the matter of conditional fees works satisfactorily.
I wish, however, briefly to raise four concerns, some of which were mentioned by other speakers in the debate. I do not wish to pursue them, but merely to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will be so kind, in replying, as to address them.
The first, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and my noble friend Lord Lester, concerns public interest cases. Like the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I am conscious of the fact that cases where the chances of victory are certainly not 75 per cent. or are uncertain, may be cases where the public interest is of central importance. The noble Lord referred to the absolute necessity of ensuring that public servants are not above the law. Nobody who has been a Member of Parliament, or for that matter an active member of a non-governmental organisation, can pretend that everything in our police force, our prisons, our Immigration Service and, not least, our treatment of refugees is such as to deserve no legal sanction should their powers be abused. If their powers are abused, every time that happens it is another blow against trust in the democratic system, and rightly so. It is the wretched of the earth who tend to be the victims in such cases, and their public interest must be defended.
I therefore wish to press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with regard to public interest cases where it is difficult to make an estimate as to a likely outcome of 75 per cent. or more. In particular, would he be willing, in exceptional cases, to consider the possibility of including not only those who are qualified lawyers but perhaps one or two others drawn from the ranks of Citizens Advice Bureaux and law centres to share in decisions as to the cases that might go ahead? I do not believe that lawyers have an absolute monopoly on wisdom in selecting which cases are of such importance that they should be further considered.
My second consideration—the first being public interest cases and the link to the 75 per cent. test—concerns the issue of "up-front" costs, addressed so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Again, I do not wish to delay the House, but ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say a little more about those cases where the up-front costs of finding independent witnesses and so on are likely to be high before any decision can be made about the likelihood of success.
Thirdly, I wish to turn briefly to the civil justice proposals so admirably advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and ask about cases
86
involving small claims of under £5,000 where, although the claim itself may be for less than £5,000, much more is at stake for the person involved. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the case of her mother. Another case that comes to mind is that of tenants seeking repairs from rapacious landlords where the actual cost of the repair may be much lower than £5,000 but for the tenant the likelihood of being able to stay in a house, and the house being livable in, is of central importance to his or her quality of life. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comment further on up-front costs for those on low incomes?
Penultimately, perhaps he will say something about mediation. I have seen a good deal of the effects of mediation in the United States, particularly in the states of Massachusetts and Maine. I have been very impressed by its effectiveness, particularly in cases, for example, of marital conflict in relation to the division of property, but also in some cases relating to boundaries between gardens and matters of that sort. I noted how large a proportion of the costs that would otherwise be involved was saved by the use of mediation in appropriate cases.
Finally, I turn to the noble and learned Lord's remarks about community law services. I said that as a nation we are relatively legally illiterate. Most of us do not even understand what a plaintiff is; most of us cannot understand legal language; and I have seen many of my constituents totally confused and in awe before a court because they simply do not know what is going on, except that at the end of the day they will probably find themselves behind bars.
The community legal service is therefore of crucial importance. I would like the noble and learned Lord to say more about it, remembering what he also said on the Human Rights Bill with regard to the possibility of assistance and help in respect of learning about human rights as well. Will he address the possibility of making legal expert systems available in public libraries and in the offices of other non-governmental organisations? Such systems sound very swish. They are not; they are often very simple descriptions of people's legal rights, including, not least, their rights to social security. Will he also consider a more radical proposal; namely, making such on-line legal advice services available in prisons?
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I should declare an interest: I owe my living to the Legal Aid Fund as a practising member of the Bar, albeit the criminal Bar, and certainly not one eligible for the list that the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor gave in his opening remarks; and I am also the paid chairman of an independent council of an ombudsman scheme, which is relevant to something I shall say.
I believe that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving it an opportunity to discuss what are, on any view, radical reforms to the legal aid system and the criminal justice system. There has been a great deal of detailed examination by noble Lords from all sides. Perhaps I could go back for a

87
moment to the first principles of what civil justice, as I understand it, is all about. The civil justice system surely exists to serve the public. It should be run in their interests and for their benefit, not for the judges, the lawyers, the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Treasury. Its purpose is to ensure that justice is done between our citizens when disputes arise which cannot be resolved in other ways. Our Government bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the system works, and I hope they accept the responsibility for ensuring that, where possible, given their other priorities, public money is available to see that it does work.
Civil justice, after all, underlies good order in our society. If it breaks down or fails, so does public respect for and compliance with the rule of law. A civil justice system can surely be said to be working well only when it fulfils five criteria. First, it should deliver justice of a high quality in which the public has confidence. That, I hope, is a principle which will never be sacrificed in the interests of expediency or cost. Secondly, the system should be as simple as can be devised. It should not be necessary to have to take the hand of a lawyer every time one needs to enter the labyrinth of the law, particularly in its lower reaches. Thirdly, it should be speedy. Wrongs must be righted quickly or their effects magnify. Fourthly, the system must be worth the money. Those who pay for it, whether they are individuals or the public, must get their money's worth. Finally, it must be accessible to all. No one should be excluded by reason of cost.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor inherited a system which is open to criticism under each of those five headings. I believe that under some of them it seriously fails the public. The measures which the noble and learned Lord proposes are all intended to restore that system to good health, given the constraints which every government department faces at the present time. Most of the proposals he makes are right on course and will have much of the effect that is desired. About one of them, I, in common with many noble Lords who have spoken this evening, have some reservations, to which I shall refer.
First, I believe that the proposed community legal service should be the starting point for the necessary changes. The court should for most disputes be the port of last resort. "Do not litigate" is usually the best advice that any lawyer can give; too often it is advice which is simply not given. By expanding the work of the citizens advice bureaux and the legal advice agencies, giving active support to alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as ombudsman schemes, financed by their respective industries, and pointing members of the public in the right direction redress can in many cases be provided in a way which is cost-effective, widely accessible and fair and without recourse to the courts at all.
If cases do come before the courts, implementation of the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, particularly in relation to small claims jurisdiction, fast-tracking and judicial case management, is particularly welcome as a means of tackling the delay,
88
complexity and waste which riddle the present system. Greater predictability about the likely costs should also result—and about time, too.
My main reservation with regard to these proposals centres around the plans of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for tackling an area in which the current system is most manifestly deficient—accessibility. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out in the past, we are failing to produce a system which is affordable to a significant proportion of our people. Ironically it is not the same proportion of our people who were denied access to justice back in the late 1940s when legal aid was introduced by a Labour government. The very poorest are now covered by legal aid. Indeed, I understand that most recipients of legal aid are in receipt of state benefits. The dispossessed are now those who have little—sometimes only a very little—and those on middle incomes.
It is universally accepted that action is necessary. The Lord Chancellor's choices are limited. Legal aid cannot realistically be extended to them, much as many, if not most, would wish it to be; nor can the Government do nothing. Unlike some noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, while I retain instinctive reservations about conditional fee agreements, I am not implacably opposed to them. I suppose that those instinctive concerns are because I was brought up in a profession in which to have a direct financial interest in the outcome of a case was regarded as undesirable. I can see that in certain circumstances the interests of a lawyer will not be those of his client: they may indeed be opposed to his client's interests. His interests may not necessarily be the interests of justice either. However, I am bound to say that my views are philosophically incompatible with those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. who would appear to go much further in his wish to see contingency fees.
The change from a professional ethos to a commercial approach will he an uncomfortable one for many of us within the profession; but, if it needs to be made, it must be made. My discomfort is in part because, as experience in other jurisdictions has shown, this is not necessarily a change which is of benefit either to the public or to the profession. I was glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the outset that in his view these conditional fee agreements are working well. But I retain considerable reservations about whether the system could cope with the massive explosion which would undoubtedly and necessarily occur if legal aid were to be terminated for such cases, as he proposes, in April of next year, in just over three months' time.
My main concern was articulated most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am concerned that smaller high street firms, which at present offer the public a choice, will reject complex cases, partly because they will require what I think are known as work-up costs, the preparation of the kind of reports to which he and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, referred, experts' reports, and so on, particularly if the costs are to be borne by the solicitors themselves. It may be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has had

89
promising discussions with the insurance industry. But at the end of the day someone will have to pay the premiums, and many people will not be able to afford even those which are considered reasonable. Larger firms may be prepared to take such risks and loss-leaders; they may not. I am afraid that litigants with a good case who need help may find themselves going from door to door to door, down the high street and beyond, until their cases are taken on, if they can find anyone to take them on, by the least well qualified and least reputable firms. Lawyers' profit margins, and still less insurance companies' profit margins, are not necessarily the same as the interests of justice.
Like other noble Lords, I am pleased and relieved that the Government accept that public interest cases will require special provision. I am also encouraged that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepts that the merit test will in some cases have to be flexibly applied and, who knows, might even be applied so as to allow some of the cases of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to be treated in such a way. I hope that, in view of all that has been said, particularly by those with great experience in the profession over many years, the Government will not contemplate the hasty removal of the present legal aid provisions in April without first having in place satisfactory insurance provisions to guarantee that the poorest people are not put back into the pre-1949 position.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke of the contingency legal aid fund. I add my voice to the numerous voices which urge the Lord Chancellor to consider that to be an idea well worth trying. If it should prove to be something which, after initial start-up costs, could be self-financing, it would appear to offer an alternative means of ensuring that the litigant with a good cause, whatever his means, has access to the courts. Without such a provision and in the absence of legal aid, I have grave doubts as to whether conditional fee agreements could fill the void that would be left behind. Also, I am troubled by the apparent timetable of April 1998.
I therefore ask my noble and learned friend to assure us that the present system will not disappear before he is quite satisfied that that part of our present population which is least able to pay will not be worse off under the new one. There is universal support for change; it has to come. There is universal support for modernisation of our civil justice system, and I congratulate my noble and learned friend for grasping the nettle and, if I may put it this way, thinking the unthinkable. But before we make these changes, we must be quite sure that they are also improvements.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I intend to speak quite briefly on one subject only; namely, the legal aid scheme which is known as the contingency legal aid fund—commonly called CLAF. It gave me great satisfaction to hear it supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and by the noble Baroness. Lady Mallalieu.
90
As your Lordships will know, the purpose of CLAF is to protect a plaintiff who has a good cause of action against liability for his own costs and liability for the defendant's costs if, contrary to expectations, his action fails. The prospective burden of costs is undoubtedly one of the most frightening features of civil litigation for the ordinary person. It is the factor that is most likely to deter a plaintiff from enforcing his rights, however just his case may seem to be, for almost all litigation contains an element of risk.
A CLAF scheme has three undeniable advantages. First, if properly managed it is self-financing and costs the taxpayer nothing. Secondly, it does not displace other forms of legal aid, but can exist alongside them. Thirdly, it is not subject to any means test because, being self-financing, it needs none.
CLAF works in this way. A central fund is first established. I will mention later how that has been done elsewhere. A plaintiff who wishes to be indemnified against the risk of having to pay his own and the defendant's costs must show that he has a good case which, prima facie, ought to succeed; an arguable case, a case with a mere 50:50 chance of succeeding is not acceptable under a CLAF scheme. CLAF is not intended for speculative litigation. It is for what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor described as a case with a high probability of success.
The percentage of damages recovered by successful plaintiffs payable to CLAF is intended to cover the costs payable by unsuccessful plaintiffs and the administrative costs of running the CLAF scheme. It will be appreciated that CLAF is not designed for the protection of defendants; it is a service for the benefit of plaintiffs. The beauty of CLAF is that it gives legal assistance to deserving plaintiffs without any resort to central funds and without involving lawyers in the outcome of the law suit because they are not affected.
CLAF has been under consideration in this country for a long time. It was first advocated in 1966. It was mooted before the Royal Commission on legal services in 1978—the Benson Commission. It was debated in a consultation paper issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1991 and in the report presented to the Lord Chancellor by Sir Peter Middleton in September of this year. Sir Peter advised that the possibility of establishing a CLAF, "is definitely worth exploring".
A CLAF scheme was set up in Hong Kong in 1984 as an adjunct to legal aid. The initial funding consisted of a loan from the State Lotteries Fund. That loan was fully repaid in 1988. In the first six years the success rate of accepted cases was approximately 95 per cent., which was adequate to cover the liabilities arising out of unsuccessful cases and also the administrative costs. In the year 1994-95, which is the last year for which I have been able to obtain any details, income comfortably exceeded expenses by about 125,000.

91
I ought just to say a word about the arguments against CLAF which were outlined in Chapter 6 of the Lord Chancellor's 1991 consultation paper. At paragraph (11) it was said,
"It might be thought wrong in principle to expect successful litigants to subsidise the unsuccessful".
So it would he if such subsidising were imposed on a successful litigant. But there is nothing wrong in principle in allowing a potential litigant to agree to such an impost, if he thinks fit, in return for the cover against costs that would be afforded by a CLAF scheme.
Paragraph (12) states:
"It might be thought wrong in principle that successful parties should have to forgo a proportion of their recovery to finance their case".
The CLAF system is merely a type of voluntary insurance. Whereas normal insurance involves paying a fixed premium at the commencement of the period of risk, a CLAF scheme involves paying a variable premium at the termination of the period of risk and then only if the risk insured against does not materialise. The litigant in effect insures against the risk that he will lose his case and be liable for his own and his opponent's costs by promising to pay a premium if and only if he wins. Of course it results in successful litigants financing unsuccessful litigants. But there is nothing wrong in that. Take an ordinary policy of insurance; the insurance company takes money from those who do not have fires in order to compensate those who do have fires. I see nothing wrong in principle in a CLAF taking money from those litigants who win their cases so as enable the CLAF to compensate litigants who lose their cases.
Paragraph (14) states:
"Litigants with good prospects of success would decline to use the scheme, putting its financial viability in jeopardy".
I do not agree. However good a case may appear to be at the start, litigation—particularly in personal injury cases—involves some element of uncertainty. Few cases are 100 per cent. certain of success. No doubt when the surgeon amputates the wrong leg, negligence and causation present no problem and the only area of dispute will be the quantum of damages. But most cases involve some element of risk and if there is an element of risk prudent persons will wish to insure against that risk. For those reasons I do not accept the generalisation that litigants with good or very good prospects for success will decline to make use of a CLAF scheme.
Paragraph (16) states:
"Although a CLAF would ultimately be self-financing, some initial funding would be required while it established itself".
That is so. In Hong Kong a loan facility of 1 million Hong Kong dollars was made available from the State Lottery Fund when the scheme was set up, but only £31,000-400,000 Hong Kong dollars—was drawn down; and, the debt was paid off in two-and-a-half years. If cases are accepted with due care and the percentage fees payable by successful litigants are appropriately fixed, I see no reason why a comparable result should not be achieved in this country.
92
Paragraph (17) states:
"It may not be possible for a CLAF to cover all classes of case".
I agree, and suggest that a cautious and selective approach is essential, particularly in the beginning. The scheme can always be widened later, as it has been in Hong Kong.
Lastly, paragraph (20) states:
"A CLAF imposes little or no discipline on litigants, in terms of weighing prospects against the cost of their case".
I think it would be wise for a CLAF scheme to impose discipline by requiring a plaintiff to pay a small percentage of the costs payable by him to a successful defendant. By this means an applicant for CLAF support would have an incentive to take a realistic view of the prospects of his case. I do not find the arguments against a CLAF scheme in the 1991 consultation paper particularly overwhelming.
I would ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to accept the conclusion of Sir Peter Middleton, that:
"The possibility of establishing a CLAF is definitely worth exploring".
I would submit that the Government should embark on that exploration.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I was fortunate enough to make my maiden speech in your Lordships' House in 1989 in the debate on the reform of the legal profession. I apologised then for my presumption, as I do now, for I am only too well aware of the great wealth of legal expertise and skill in advocacy in your Lordships' House. which, unfortunately, I do not have. My only appearance in court was as a defendant in a speeding case, so I cannot claim any qualification. However, I have the temerity to take part in this debate because my feelings are so strongly engaged.
At the time of the 1989 debate I was chairman of the National Consumer Council. In that debate I referred to what was then our recent publication Ordinary Justice, my main concern being access to justice for those at the lower end of the income scale. Indeed, I particularly welcome today the proposal to raise the limits for small claims court cases. It is interesting to recall that back in 1972, when the then Conservative Government were proposing new ideas on the small claims court in order to make them less daunting for ordinary people, there was uproar from honourable Members in the legal profession on both sides of the House. I am sure that noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that that was the case even then.
At the time of that debate I was concerned mainly that the costs and the delays in going to law made it a daunting experience for many people. Since then, as has been said often in today's debate, legal aid costs have soared, as have legal costs outside legal aid. One must wonder what the connection is. A bonfire has been lit and if noble Lords will excuse the mixed metaphor, at the same time the pendulum has swung far too far against the interests of a very large sector of the public—those on middle incomes, those on lower middle incomes and even those on upper middle incomes—for whom there is virtually no access to justice. They cannot possibly afford to prosecute or

93
defend a case in which their opponent is legally aided. Even if they win the case and costs, they are usually landed with the bill for their own costs because their legally aided opponent has no means with which to pay. That is deterring a large section of the community—not litigious people but people who are defending themselves. They may realise that it could be cheaper for them to make an offer than to be landed with costs. That cannot be considered justice.
The Legal Aid Board is fully aware of that when it sanctions legal aid, all too often where the case of its clients is far from strong and where numerous adjournments are used because they will not cost the legally aided party anything but disastrously swell the costs of the other party and the fees of the legal aid lawyers. They go along very happily with these adjournments and anything that will bump up the costs. At the other end of the scale huge sums of legal aid are paid out on behalf of those who have successfully managed to conceal their wealth. I know that the Lord Chancellor has those people in mind just as much as the others.
At this point I should like to emphasise that I do not go as far in my condemnation of the status quo as some people who have said that legal aid is a "gravy train" for unscrupulous lawyers at both end of the scale, that lawyers avail themselves of a blank cheque in legal aid payments and that this has led to a very great increase in legal costs all round. But I do assure your Lordships that one is hearing that kind of criticism more and more frequently these days and some of it is merited.
Many of your Lordships have spoken of particular concerns and anomalies that could arise for certain groups if the proposals go forward unaltered. Many of those examples will, I am sure, be considered by the Lord Chancellor. My chief concern in that category is the effect that the proposals could have on personal injury cases. This point has been raised by noble Lords with great expertise. It is one of the areas that will need careful attention. As for insurance and its cost, it occurs to me that any solicitor defending on a contingency basis a person with no means whatever, and who will not be called upon to pay any costs even if he loses, will not find it beneficial to buy insurance.
A great deal has been said in the debate about ethical questions in relation to contingency fee cases. As someone said, there may be shyster solicitors chasing ambulances and things of that nature. There is not very much difference between that and those lawyers today who use legal aid costs as a blank cheque for their own means. In ethical terms I cannot see that there is a great deal of difference.
A number of noble and learned Lords of great distinction and legal expertise have said, or insinuated often, that the proposals that we are debating are Treasury driven. Maybe they are and maybe they should be. But the principle of giving access to justice, which is now denied to so many by cost, is what we should keep in the forefront of our minds at this time. I believe that the principal purpose of these proposals is right. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his courage in bringing these matters forth. I wish him every
94
success in future in what I am sure is going to be a long battle, but if he continues in the same vein he will certainly continue to have my support.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I have to confess that I am yet another lawyer, albeit one who has not for many years derived much benefit from legal aid. It is a fairly shaming confession to have to make in this debate when one contrasts the extreme length of the speeches made by virtually every legally qualified person with the extreme brevity of the speeches made by those few participants who are not legally qualified. Some cynics might think that that has something to do with the high burden of legal costs.
Much less of this debate has concentrated on the reform of civil justice as opposed to the cost of legal aid. I suggest to your Lordships that the high cost of litigation nowadays is very much a product of our search for perfect justice. I very much endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said, that there has to be a compromise between the demands of perfect justice and the cost. Some savings may mean that there is somewhat less than full discovery or a somewhat less than perfect trial on every available issue.
The legislation and practice of the past 20 or 30 years have all gone in the opposite direction. Whenever anything goes even slightly wrong in legal proceedings the natural step has been to lay down longer and longer procedures to make sure that that particular matter never goes wrong again. We then have a situation where the search for perfect justice is costing more than I suspect it is worth. If we are to strike a balance, we have to recognise that we may have to sacrifice what is thought to be perfect justice, although I have no great conviction that cases nowadays are decided any more rightly than they were when I started at the Bar and they were tried in a much shorter time.
We must also recognise that if costs are to be controlled and limited, there will be cases where a lawyer is not able to take what he deems to be a necessary or desirable step either because the fixed costs have run out or because he can no longer fund it on the contingency basis. Where on earth does that leave him in relation to negligence? Suing a professional is very much a growing trade, and again, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said, the fear of being sued for negligence can often drive people, whether doctors, lawyers or whatever, to take steps that may not be strictly necessary. But they must guard themselves.
I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will contemplate in his scheme giving protection against negligence where a lawyer says, "I would like to do this, but I cannot manage to do so on the limited fees or on a contingency basis". Therefore, he decides not to take that particular step. It is then said that in an ideal world that step should have been taken. I do not believe that lawyers can be expected to practise with limited resources if they are to be blamed for not doing something which would have cost even more.
Turning to the conditional fee agreement scheme, I find it at this stage—as indeed may have been intended—very vague. I am unclear as to how it would

95
work in practice in relation to those litigants who are poor or fairly poor. The noble and learned Lord sought to explain that insurance would be available at what he suggested was not too inordinate a cost. He quoted £3,000. It seemed to me fairly surprising to contemplate that many solicitors would be prepared to put that sort of money up front. But when the noble and learned Lord quotes £3,000, I suspect that that is for a case with a high prospect of success, perhaps within the 75 per cent. limit target which he mentioned.
I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that it is rare that one can possibly say, even in a fairly simple case, "You have as much as a 75 per cent. chance of success". It is even rarer to be able to say that at the very beginning of a case. But if an insurance company is going to quote a premium for defence costs, it will surely want to receive an advice as to the merits of the case. In a case of any complexity one will not be able to give that advice until considerable steps have been taken and may be expert reports have been obtained. So the lawyer is to fund the obtaining of expert reports, taking proofs and statements, with the prospect of then having to pay the insurance fee.
But what happens if the insurance is not available because not enough is thought of the prospects of the case or the insurance premium quoted is more than can be afforded? If the case is then dropped, all the costs incurred have been wholly wasted at the lawyer's expense. I am not clear whether the noble and learned Lord contemplates that it will be open to a plaintiff to go ahead on a contingency fee basis without any insurance, saying to himself, "I am so poor that I do not really mind if an order for costs is made against me because there is nothing for it to be enforced against". Is it going to be allowed that he goes ahead without the insurance, and if the solicitor goes ahead without it, is the solicitor himself at risk of being held personally liable for the costs on the basis that he has an interest in the case? Until one has answers to some of these questions it is difficult to know what one thinks of the scheme.
The difficulty to which I have referred and the other difficulties which have been mentioned today, lead me to wonder whether it would not be more appropriate if for many cases legal aid were available at the beginning of the case and then at some pre-ordained stage laid down by the Legal Aid Board the case could be reconsidered to see whether it should then switch to a conditional fee agreement. If legal aid were available until that stage, and then one did not have to go on and pay anything further and it remained a first charge on recovery, the costs of legal aid for each case would be much smaller. One could then have a much higher limit of eligibility, so one would have relieved the point that at the moment it is only the very poor who can have access to justice by this means.
8.39 p.m.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest as a practising barrister—of advanced years perhaps but of a short term in practice. A large percentage of my practice depends on legal aid,
96
but I hasten to assure noble Lords that I am far from joining the category of fat feline beneficiaries to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred in opening the debate. I wish that I could experience being part of that club for even five minutes. However, I am not qualified to comment on that aspect. I have also had practical experience over a number of years in a previous incarnation in the international insurance industry, albeit a few years ago.
The embarkation on a long-overdue reform of the civil justice and legal aid systems is thoroughly welcome and desirable. None of the noble Lords I have heard in this debate disputed the fact that civil justice is too expensive and too exclusive; nor that the legal aid system requires anything other than radical reform. If it is not impertinent of me, I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the same terms as those used by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on his courage and forthrightness in confronting a dilemma which has not been grasped for years. I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not find himself metaphorically transported even temporarily from the Woolsack on to the horns of the dilemmas contained in this Bill. I wish him well.
I should like to refer briefly to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, published in 1996. I think and hope that it will be useful in bringing us back, if necessary, to the purpose that we are trying to achieve, which was clearly expounded by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. That report was expressly concerned with looking at the civil justice system to make it more possible for all persons in the United Kingdom to achieve justice. Many recommendations were made—all born of careful and meticulous thought, as one would expect from the noble and learned Lord—to increase access to justice, to reduce the cost of litigation and to increase the speed at which justice can be efficiently achieved.
At this stage, I must ask myself whether the proposal to exclude legal aid from money and damages claims will provide a system which gets to the heart of a problem and succeeds in resolving it painlessly, speedily and at reasonable cost. That seems to me to be what we should be trying to achieve. I have every hope that the noble and learned Lord is seeking to achieve those aims.
I shall not speak for long, but I should like to refer to two matters. I refer first to the vexed question of costs from a practical aspect, as I have experienced it. The noble and learned Lord is right in his determination to drive down costs for the benefit of the individual litigant. I suspect that he is also right to look carefully at who the recipients of legal aid are, especially with regard to where assets have been hidden or cannot be touched. There are many aspects to that matter and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider how the long hand can reach out and collect some of that money.
A material start to such a campaign is to cut out the waste and duplication. Although that point has been mentioned, I shall go into more detail than hitherto. Waste and duplication are manifest and inherent in the

97
present system. From my experience, I do not think that they are the exception. Sadly, it is more often the rule than the exception that legal aid papers arrive on counsel's desk in a state of muddle and disarray. Money is then wasted by either the instructing solicitor putting the papers into order or the barrister doing it. Time ticks on. Time is consumed. When to that there is added, as I have found, the time taken in making on each and every possible occasion interlocutory applications on every small point, the time consumed becomes enormous. What the action was originally about is forgotten in counsel's mind some six months later—and I have had legal aid cases that have gone on for years.
Added to that, there are constructive delays in the system. There is the pure and simple delay when one might say that "Sleeping Beauty inertia" takes over. When inertia is eventually overcome, often some months later, there are further additional costs to the system without any benefit being derived by the funded litigant. I take heart from the noble and learned Lord's proposals that the judiciary will exercise special management in such matters. Counsel is often in a difficult position and cannot do very much about it.
My next point relates to the application of the "merits test". I am not exactly sure where the noble and learned Lord is going on that because a test was laid down in the legal aid guide some three years ago which required to be followed. Under the present scheme, the test places the barrister under a continuing strict duty to bring to the notice of the Legal Aid Board any matter which might affect the assisted person's entitlement to legal aid at whatever stage the proceedings have reached. The sword of Damocles hanging over the barrister's head is that his advice on the merits may be taken into account at a later stage when a wasted costs order is being considered on the grounds of the barrister's non-compliance with the Act. Many legal aid cases which require later consideration can be considered in full detail if the papers are put in properly ordered form to the barrister in the first instance. He usually gets very near the target.
In giving advice on the merits, the barrister has to look at the legal merits test and the reasonableness test, and to address each separately. He has to address all factual issues and set them out in sufficient detail to enable the board to assess their relative strengths and express a clear opinion. Particular attention is required to be drawn where evidence is likely to be contested and where there is any lack or incompleteness of material. Confirmation is required that the proceedings are cost-effective—that is, that the proceedings are likely to be justified by the benefit to the client bearing in mind the statutory charge.
Counsel is then required to estimate by percentage the prospect of success. Various noble Lords have used percentages, but counsel now has to consider the following: (a) is "very good" and is equal to an 80 per cent. or more likelihood of success; (b) is "good" and is equal to between 60 and 80 per cent; (c) is "reasonable" and is equal to between 50 and 60 per cent. The present proposals of the noble and learned Lord are that those cases considered to be "reasonable" by that test over the past three years—that is, those in the 50 to 60 per cent.
98
bracket—no longer qualify for legal aid and that 15 per cent. of those considered "good" likewise will not qualify. That really means that only the "very good" (at 80 per cent.) and only the top 5 per cent. of the "good" will now be considered in appropriate cases for legal aid. I have to echo the concern that has been expressed by many noble Lords today that there is a gap—there will be people who cannot get legal aid, particularly on civil matters, and who will not get redress. That point concerns me.
Matters are still at an experimental stage. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will allow there to be some trial or some research project, carefully monitored, to test the operation of these interesting and radical steps. That would certainly be merited. In the meantime, I feel that the considerable savings that I have suggested could be effected should be put into operation. I doubt very much whether the advice on the merits is honoured fully in the observance. It never used to be. One used to look at the papers and say, "On the balance, it seems to be a possible runner". One could never go so far as to put a percentage upon it, but now one has to. One must do a good deal of preparatory work if one is conscientious about it. I hope that the sword of Damocles of wasted cost that hangs over barristers and people who do not do this will act as a motivation to do it properly.
I deal with one other small but important matter. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, expressed the view that the aims of justice were not compatible with the aims of insurance underwriters. I hope that I do not attribute to the noble Baroness words that she did not utter. My experience of the insurance market, small though it was—I spent about seven to 10 years in it—and at the Bar dealing with insured cases was that the insurer would probably insure on an excess of loss basis. As soon as the upper limit had been reached, irrespective of the legal merits and where one was going, the plug would heartlessly be pulled out and the litigant would gurgle down the pipe so that the insurance company could preserve its profits. This matter must be looked at in order to prevent any poor unsuspecting litigant from gurgling down the pipe into the main drain. That is what will happen. The insurance underwriter is hard-nosed, objective and, following recent adverse experience, will be careful to draft the contract so that he gets a profit out of it. One is very concerned to look carefully at this and tie up the ends of such a project.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I welcome this debate this evening. I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for giving us the opportunity of this very wide-ranging debate. In my short time in the House I have noticed that it appears to be the practice of those who are not lawyers to apologise when they have the temerity to take part in debates on the law. This evening I should like to break that mould. My brashness—indeed, boldness—is not borne of arrogance that I know better but out of my experience as a trade union leader. I note that the four non-lawyer Members of this House who have had the temerity to enter this debate are all noble Baronesses who have

99
different experiences in life but who have expressed very similar views this evening irrespective of the side of the House on which they sit. On the basis of many years' experience as a trade union officer, I welcome this debate.
It is quite clear from the figures that have been given that—to use an old saying—something has to be done. Something does have to be done. In the newspaper industry Rupert Murdoch once said to me, "Brenda"— I was a general secretary, and still am—"the music has changed but the dance remains the same". I just wonder how people in the legal profession will change given some of the views that I have heard.
I am encouraged by the fact that we have a Lord Chancellor of great experience. Above all, he does not lack courage on this particular issue. Courage will be the name of the game in the debate ahead of us. I also welcome the way in which, almost in a humble manner, my noble and learned friend said several times during his contribution that consultation would take place, that this debate was taking place now and he wanted to hear what people thought. He said that he would not proceed according to the narrow requirement of consultation but would consult widely. A consultation paper is to be published in the coming year. At a training seminar yesterday his honourable friend in another place said—I am sure that he would not have said it without checking—that the final decision would not be taken until consultation had been completed.
I declare my interest, perhaps retrospectively, but it is a very practical interest. I speak of my involvement in the trade union movement. My concern is that, contrary to the intention to save money or to maintain expenditure—in other words, to bring back control over legal aid expenditure—because of the claim that we cannot have special interest or special cases, there will he a fundamental change from what happens at the moment in regard to personal injuries.
When I was general secretary of a union part of my work involved instructing lawyers. Sometimes I took their advice and sometimes I did not. Sometimes I was pleased that I did not take their advice and at other times I regretted it. But my job was to instruct lawyers to act on behalf of union members who when they paid their contributions were unaware that part of them were an insurance so that if they had an accident on the way to work, from work or at work the union would step in and provide legal assistance for them. There would be no cost to the member, win or lose. We were not the only union that did that.
In the past year the trade union movement supported five times more personal injury cases than the Legal Aid Board: 150,000 cases as opposed to 30,000. When we had legal advice sometimes people had to hear the hard words that a particular case could not be pursued. Ninety six per cent. of personal injury cases pursued by unions succeed. Last year £330 million was recovered in damages, and £179 million was paid back to the Department of Social Security in benefits recouped as a result of legal cases.
100
Injuries at work are an area different from most others, with the exception of road traffic injury cases. Here we already have an employer's liability to insure. The people with whom our lawyers deal are not litigants but insurance companies. My experience was that there was a complete denial irrespective of whether the particular case was patently clear to everyone. A company might admit its fault, for example that a safety guard on a machine had been left up perhaps resulting in a dreadful accident. When the insurance company could no longer deny it it would delay. That delay ratchets up the cost. Many a time such cases are settled on the steps of the court. If we place a ceiling on costs my concern is that such activity will grow.
My other anxiety relates to one part of the Woolf Report that I did not welcome. My concern is that the "loser pays all" principle will be set aside. One will have a situation in which the cost limit is reached. Liability has been denied and there is delay. One knows that if one goes on, one will win but the union will be faced with a claim that it may not be able to afford. At the moment this money is recycled. It will cost £25 million if this scheme completely stops. The money is recycled because one pays out the legal fees. If one wins one gets back the costs. Those costs go back into the fund which then helps to fund other cases that are coming through. That is an efficient use of revenue. That is my concern about some of the issues that we have before us.
I have another area of concern. We have on the statute book now protection for people who suffer from industrial deafness. How did that happen? It happened as a result of unions taking up individual no-hope cases. The unions persisted until they were successful. The pneumoconiosis cases gradually became successful, one at a time, over many years.
Today's modern complaint is RSI. As general secretary, I authorised expenditure with regard to household names such as the Financial Times and other newspapers. They related to men and women doing repetitive work in factories. We knew that they were probably no-hope cases, but we gradually built up experience of such cases.
There is at the moment an RSI case in London relating to five employees of the Midland Bank. Behind those five people there are hundreds of cases. The five employees are a test case. The union is funding the case. The employees know that there is no limit. If they lose the case, the union will have to pay the costs; if they win, they will win their costs and so the cases of those hundreds of people will be able to be processed.
Of course taxpayers' money must be used efficiently, but this is not the taxpayers' money. I hope that I do not embarrass my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when I say that in the courts he represented some of the most vulnerable people whom I was proud to represent. He pulled the rabbit out of the hat on many occasions and succeeded for our members. That leads me to believe that he knows that the issues are real. I ask him to consider those matters because I cannot believe that there is an intention to sweep away the commitment which exists, and which will go if there is

101
a cap on what one can reclaim. That fixed cap means that unions will he funding cases which they will win but in which the costs will not be met.
The individual union member pays nothing. It is part of being a union member. Many members are surprised when they learn that. Many of them, with all due humility, are terrified of lawyers. They would no more dream of seeing a lawyer than of doing something that they would not normally do. They would not know the name of a lawyer to ring. It is something that the legal profession needs to address.
I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for this debate. There will be a response to the consultation document, but I should greatly welcome it if he can respond this evening to some of the points that I have made.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down. I should like to say from these Back-Benches how greatly her contribution is appreciated. I have, in my professional life, acted for and against unions. She speaks with a wealth of accurate expertise. It is not for her to apologise for her contribution or those other lay contributions; it is for the lawyers to apologise for monopolising so many of your Lordships' debates.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Byron: My Lords, fat cats, thin cats, and possibly even Lord Chancellors, need their dinner, so I shall not detain noble Lords for long. I shall apologise, since I have been invited to do so, by saying that I am yet another lawyer. I am a practising solicitor. I could have some interest in this matter, but the firm of which I am a partner does almost no legal aid work. So I am unlikely to be a loser. Whether I shall be a gainer depends, I suppose, upon whether conditional fee arrangements make their way into the commercial field.
I shall focus on just one or two points. There are some advantages in speaking at the end of the debate. I can tear up my notes, because everything that I was going to say has already been said by those much more eloquent than I am. There are three tests by which the proposals need to be addressed: are they necessary? Are they workable? Are they wise?
With regard to necessity, I believe that the noble and learned Lord has made out the case that something needs to be done to provide better access to the courts. But the case for sweeping away a whole tranche of legal aid has not been made out. As I understand it, the areas of legal aid which might be replaced are among the least burdensome on the Legal Aid Fund. Indeed, personal injury actions nearly wash their face. It is inevitable that some residual form of legal aid will be required, for many of the reasons so eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I echo the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that cases could perhaps be started on legal aid and then transferred at the appropriate time to a conditional fee agreement. That would overcome some of the hurdles relating to the start-up costs of which we have heard so
102
much tonight, and which make things so difficult for those who cannot finance them. So much then for necessity.
Are the arrangements workable? To get the scheme off the ground there will need to be underwriters prepared to provide an after-the-event insurance product in a wide range of possible cases. It was suggested by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who I see is not in her place, that impoverished plaintiffs could avoid insuring in the knowledge that they would not be able to meet an adverse costs order. As I understand it, that is not the case, because solicitors financing and supporting plaintiffs would, under normal common law rules, be regarded as maintaining the action, and would themselves become liable for those costs. Insurance is necessary, whether the plaintiff has means or not.
It is difficult to he confident that there will be no substantial gaps in the insurance which can be offered. We have experience only in relation to personal injury where the vast majority of cases are successful and almost all defendants are insured. I do not believe that the present system has been operating sufficiently long for real assessments to be made of the way in which it is working. In relation to general claims for damages, even if we take 75 per cent. as a reasonable threshold expectation of success, there is a 25 per cent. risk of failure and a consequent adverse cost award. If in a substantial case the costs run to £40,000 there would be a possible premium of about £10,000. That is aside from the uplift element which a solicitor would be able to charge if the case were successful.
Practical problems abound. I wish to raise five points for the noble and learned Lord to answer not necessarily tonight but for future thought. First, is it intended that the Law Society's voluntary cap of 25 per cent. of damages should be made statutory? If not, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor consider that there should be any restriction on the percentage of damages taken as a conditional fee?
Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord foresee any likely increase in awards of damages to compensate for the impact of conditional fees either as a result of legislation or as a judicial response to the operation of such fees? Thirdly, has there been any research into the attitude of litigants to conditional fee arrangements, including those who fail to get a solicitor to act under such an agreement? If so, with what results?
Fourthly, can the noble and learned Lord give any figures for the projected savings from the legal aid budget if all damages claims have to be brought by means of a conditional fee agreement? Fifthly, do the Government have any plans to address the problem of the inability of low income households to find the insurance premium and disbursements required to get a case off the ground?
So much for practicality. What about questions of policy? Are we right to make lawyers partners in a commercial joint venture with their clients? Perhaps I may give a couple of examples from the coalface of litigation. It has been said that expert evidence should be seen to be the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced as to formal content by the exigencies of

103
litigation. All lawyers know that even lawyers without financial interests in a case, whether they be solicitors or counsel, involve themselves probably far too much in assisting, drafting and preparing expert reports. Is that more or less likely to happen if the lawyers are joint venture partners in the outcome of the litigation? The same could be said for witness statements and many other aspects of the litigation.
I turn to documents and the obligation to give discovery. I doubt whether there are many people, even including those in the legal profession, who understand the pressures put on a solicitor in the middle of a case who is handed a new file of documents which he has never previously seen; documents which will almost certainly be fatal to the case which he is running, but documents which nevertheless must be disclosed. As the system stands, judges as well as lawyers can be reasonably confident that those whose responsibility it is will ensure that the documents are disclosed. But once that confidence is shaken, one will be striking at the heart of the administration of justice as we know it.
It is said that the system is working well and that conditional fee agreements have not given rise to any of those difficulties. However, a few years is a short time. I suspect that all those lawyers who were brought up in a system in which they were denied any financial interest will, when they are given a financial interest, be doubly careful to ensure scrupulous behaviour. But situations can change over time and generations. A different generation may grow up with different expectations and interests and with a more commercial approach and we must be a little more cautious before rushing completely and wholeheartedly down that road.
My final comment is a plea to the noble and learned Lord to progress the debate without the unattractive anti-lawyer spin which has been placed on the proposals. It was said that legal aid,
"must be made a tool to promote access to justice for the needy and not be seen by the public as basically a means of keeping lawyers in business".
Is that really how legal aid is seen? Does legal aid exist to provide a living for, for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, or is she there to provide a service for those who need it?
Is the National Health Service seen as basically a means of keeping doctors in business? It can hardly be denied that it does keep them in business and without it, there would be fewer doctors and much less access to medical care. Society is happy to pay for that for we all fear that one day, we may grow old. It is perhaps fortunate that we do not dwell too often on the possibility that we may need to use the courts. I am sure that those who do are grateful that they are able to receive legal aid and no doubt disappointed when they cannot. Whatever else may be said about the proposal, it is patently wrong to suggest that it will promote access to justice for the really needy rather than, perhaps, to those who lie in the middle.
At the conclusion of his speech in Cardiff, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested that the new regime should go a long way towards heightening
104
the public standing of lawyers. When the widowed mother loses part of her carefully calculated damages to pay for the lawyer's increased fee, will the public and press acclaim the lawyer for his role in obtaining damages for the client or will they rather denigrate him as a greedy fat cat, forgetting that lawyers are merely doing their best to operate a system which they never perhaps expected to have to operate?
There are difficulties and with respect, I urge caution. I believe that we are on the right track and there is undoubtedly a will for these reforms. But I suggest that we are rushing a bit and I urge some caution on the noble and learned Lord.
9.16 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, said that all the non-lawyers who had taken part in the debate were Baronesses. I do not know whether she took me for a lawyer or a Baroness but in either case, I thank her for the compliment but must in modesty disclaim it.
I must apologise also for intervening in the gap. When I had to decide whether to put my name on the list today, I had to calculate whether I should arrive in time for today's debate. I calculated that I did not have a 75 per cent. chance of success. I arrived in time due to the chances of a long Statement, a pupil who had not done his essay and finding a taxi within 30 seconds. That was not a 75 per cent. chance of success but here I am.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I was brought up by my noble friend Lord Denham to believe that you never intervened in the gap unless you had had the privilege of hearing the opening speeches. perhaps I am wrong. The last person in the world against whom I would wish to make a point is the noble Earl. but is this in accordance with the procedures of the House?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will bear witness that I did hear the opening speeches.
Whenever we are considering any proposal for capping, I view it with a certain amount of anxiety because, as many uncomfortable school memories remind me, caps do not always fit. The effects are rife. When one considers any proposal designed to control expenditure, one must consider what will happen instead. The late Cyril Hare, alias Judge Gordon Clark, once compared the law to a chimney by which all the noxious fumes go out of the house. If you close the chimney, where will the fumes go instead? If we attempt to cap the legal aid budget, even if it is not the noble and learned Lord's intention, there will be cases in which people do not manage to get their cases to court. What will happen instead?
There is a Treasury guideline which says that any Minister contemplating a reduction in public spending—and I think in Treasury theology, prevention of an increase constitutes a saving—must consider the resource implications for other departments. Therefore,

105
we need to know the behavioural effects of denying access to the courts. What will those people do instead and what will be the resource implications of those actions? For example, they may take the law into their own hands. They may spread libels and slanders. They may remain ill and on benefit and there will be no compensation recovery. But until that calculation is undertaken and we know those behavioural effects, we cannot know what will be the effect of those proposals.
Also, I feel some misgiving about leaving the Government to be exclusive judges of costs in anything. We have heard about lawyers having an interest, but, equally, the Treasury has an interest. Lawyers at least are competent to judge legal costs; but government are not competent to judge costs in a field where expertise is necessary. In particular, the Treasury seems to be ignorant of the concept of a true cost. It also does not seem to understand that, in a quality market, competition drives costs up and not down. If you are facing a possible sentence of life imprisonment, the market value of the second-best lawyer is nil. Listening to my noble friend Lord Taverne, I wondered whether the effect of these proposals may be to increase public spending and not to control it.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I should, first, declare an interest as a lawyer. I have been in receipt of legal aid fees for as long as I can remember, both as a solicitor and later as counsel. I have also appeared for trade unions. Therefore, I believe that I have some experience in the field.
The rise of legal aid expenditure has been attributed in some parts of your Lordships' House today to rather overblown cases which have been presented to the courts. I regret to say that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Taverne that there is no incentive to shorten cases in courts. Clearly my noble friend has not appeared in front of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, for some time. I strenuously agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that it was all different in our youth. Indeed, we went into court, we called our witnesses, we got on with the job and got the judgment. However, these days, as I drag my trolley along the fast track of litigation towards the courts, I am laden down with reports, with photographs, with the bundles of documents and the core bundle, with the skeleton argument, the timetable and everything which is supposed to hasten the proceedings. In fact, that usually causes an adjournment during which the learned judge has to read it all before the case begins.
The true reason for the rise in legal aid expenditure is the relentless increase in legislation—indeed, it affects all parts of our lives—and the problems associated with social deprivation leading to marriage breakdown, difficulties with children and with juveniles, increased crime and bad housing. In addition, there are changes to society which are not necessarily to be deplored, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, pointed out. There is also the growth of consumer groups and specialist legal interest groups, together with a growing awareness by the public of rights—rights which are to be exercised and to be exercised by taking proceedings in court. I have no
106
doubt that more litigation is to be expected in the light of the Human Rights Bill which is currently going through Parliament.
When the legal aid scheme was first introduced it covered 80 per cent. of the population but in the years that have gone by that percentage has been reduced by half, although the legal aid bill has risen sharply. So reducing eligibility for legal aid does not seem to have done anything towards reducing costs. However, interestingly enough, 40 per cent. of the population of this country still qualifies for legal aid. There has been something of a tendency this evening to describe those people as "the poor". Indeed, removing legal aid from the poor does not sound too big a job because we do not think that there are so many poor people. But, if we say that we will be removing legal aid from 40 per cent. of the population, that suggests that there is a bigger problem than at first appears to be the case.
As I understand it, over the past two years there have been about 32.000 CFAs (conditional fee agreements), as compared with 230,000 legal aid certificates. What does that mean? If in April, 1998, legal aid certificates are to disappear, over the next two years we can expect 230,000 CFAs, each of which runs to 10 pages and is incomprehensible to anyone, and 230,000 additional insurance policies to cover the liability that goes with it.
There is also the possibility of a denial of justice for a significant proportion of those people. If there is to be a 75 per cent. threshold, what does that really mean? You only have to prove your case in a civil court on a balance of probabilities. You must be more likely to be correct than not. If the 75 per cent. is to be the threshold for getting any legal aid, a significant proportion of people who would have succeeded will not receive any legal assistance.
If the result is obvious and if you are 75 per cent. sure you will win, and your opponent is 75 per cent. sure that you will win, there is never a trial, there is a settlement. No one will appear for the defence if he thinks that he has only a one in four chance of success. It is at the beginning of a case when the solicitor sees the client for the first time that he will consider whether there is a 75 per cent. chance of success. On his instructions, and believing everything that his client tells him—as he is bound to do—and on the case as pleaded, he has 100 per cent. surety that he will win, tempered only by experience and by the knowledge that things go wrong in litigation. That appreciation may be very different as the case proceeds and as witness statements emerge from the other side and so on. So when is this 75 per cent. assessment to be made? It is pointless saying at the beginning that the percentage is 75 per cent. The best test is that which we have at the moment for legal aid; namely, is it more likely than not, on the information that you are putting before the Legal Aid Board, that you will succeed? You cannot put it any higher than that. You cannot say on day one, "I have a 75 per cent. chance of succeeding in this case".
Reforms have already taken place in the legal aid scheme. The Bar Council agreed a system of graduated fees in criminal cases that was successfully introduced earlier this year. Its impact on reducing the cost of

107
criminal legal aid is yet to be assessed. Neither the Bar Council nor the Law Society has demonstrated that they are resistant to change. Indeed the Bar Council is embracing the idea of the contingency legal aid fund. It is far too easy to jump up and down on lawyers. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his article in the New Statesman on 31st October stated,
"A heavy impediment is the entrenched interests of the legal professions. Not surprisingly, they are attached to the old regime because it was designed to cater for the idiosyncratic ways they do business and to deliver a healthy income from the taxpayer".
Today the noble and learned Lord has talked of the legal profession expressing doom and gloom at his proposals. This is part of the "anti-lawyer spin" to which the noble Lord, Lord Byron, referred a moment ago. I respectfully remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that even healthier incomes are derived by lawyers instructed by insurance companies, banks, large commercial concerns, and local government organisations, all of whom derive their funds not from mid air but from the ordinary people of this country as consumers of goods and services. The problem is to maintain some kind of relationship between the levels of remuneration of these commercial lawyers and the rest of us who are engaged in the nuts and bolts of society; those of us who are engaged in criminal defence work, marriage breakdown, children cases, and in winning damages for the man who is injured at the workface or in a devastating car accident. The resolution of the toils and tribulations of the "little" man may be far below the whiskers of the fat cats and may be beneath their notice. But the legal profession must attract men and women of talent, dedication and calibre to be the mechanics who keep society going with the tools of their trade in what New Labour would no doubt wish to call the "people's courts".
The first principle has to be that the lawyer's interest is never in conflict with the interests either of justice or of the client. When we talk about a strong and independent Bar that is not some kind of mantra; it means something. It means that barristers will not settle a case at any price in order to make sure that they are paid. It means that barristers will not wilfully mislead the court to win a case. When the noble Lord, Lord Byron, spoke I was reminded of a situation when His Honour Judge Fricker, who is now a noted judge in York—at that time he was a barrister—approached me on the third day of a civil case and produced a letter which he said his client, a local authority, had not disclosed. He said, "I withdraw from this case". And so he did. We won hands down because he did his duty. He would have done it whether or not he was paid. But some counsel may quietly have forgotten about that letter.
The same applies to solicitors. Are they expected to pay experts up front for complicated medical negligent cases? Are they supposed to pay the insurance premiums for their clients under conditional fee agreements? The Gwynedd Law Society consists of practitioners in Anglesey, Caernarvon and Merioneth. At its AGM on 8th November last, it passed a resolution which stated:
"Extension of conditional fees will degrade Solicitors from being independent financial advisers to mere financial speculators".
108
The society, of which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is a member—it was his brother who wrote to me—regretted that a Labour Government were to be responsible for scrapping vital parts of the legal aid scheme in a way which will have a serious detrimental effect on firms supplying general legal services outside large centres of population. It is all very well to talk in terms of London. But out in the country where I have practised for most of my life it is a very different scene. There the local society requires support.
I join with my noble friend Lord Goodhart, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in asking for consideration of the CLAF scheme. That is not a no win no fee situation. If that scheme is put into effect solicitors will not be mere financial speculators.
The second principle is that access to justice is the priority, not the curbing of the legal aid budget. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out that the Lord Chancellor said last year that there was a considerable underspend on the budget. Therefore it does not look as though the legal aid budget has been bursting at the seams for the past two or three years. The conditional fee system may have its attractions, but it is at an experimental stage. It has been operating for two years; 32,000 policies have been written; many have not yet been settled or come to trial; and there has been no detailed analysis of those which have. We do not know the impact in money terms. We do not know the impact in money claims for example, between two small businesses, or in consumer cases. But, more importantly, how is the insurance aspect to be worked out?
In personal injury cases—they have been operating for two years—the insurance industry worked with the Law Society for over three years to produce Accident Line Protect. The ALP scheme limits the risks to insurers in a number of ways. First, it deals only with solicitors who are members of the Law Society's accident line scheme, and therefore employs someone who is on one of the Law Society panels as a specialist. Further, to avoid any participating solicitor sending only his bad cases, he has to undertake to send all cases. That is well and good, but how are those conditions to be spread over the whole range of proceedings where damages are to be claimed? It is not too difficult to predict a result in mainstream personal injury work whereby all the documents are seen. But what will be the situation when one is dealing with actions against the police or prison officers, or where the defence is funded throughout, or public interest cases where the defendants have access to unlimited funds? Many years ago, I recall appearing on my own in a Divisional Court with Treasury Counsel—he is not in his place today—and about six or 10 civil servants instructing him throughout. He was good enough to thank me for coming; and I am glad to say we won.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will note that there is an almost united voice from all parts of the House asking for a more gradual approach to reform. We heard that view from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Byron, and others. The Law Society, the Bar Council and consumer groups all seek greater research into

109
conditional fee agreements and the assessment of their success. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sought a pilot CLAF scheme so that that can be assessed. There is no reason for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor "to boldly go where no man has gone before". Unless something catastrophic happens, he has perhaps four to four-and-a-half years left in which to deal with this problem; "festina lente" must be the motto. Legal aid in civil cases has a long history of service to the people of this country, and it must not be destroyed without proper thought and without proper schemes in place.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the debate has been of an exceedingly, indeed for someone who has to wind up, intimidatingly high standard. I think everybody congratulated the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his bold and courageous approach to what seems to all of us to be an intractable problem.
He is absolutely right to set the question of legal aid in the context of the civil justice reforms proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer considering taxation would never dream of doing so without examining the other side of the coin; namely, public expenditure. Equally, any Lord Chancellor considering the financing of legal services has to examine their cost. I was struck by the fact that a great deal was said in the debate about the financing of legal services, but rather less was said about the reforms proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
I refer in particular to the fast-track procedure and the fixed cost regime that will accompany it. Sir Peter Middleton expressed some reservations about introducing both at the same time. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord shares those reservations or whether he thinks that between now and 1999 he can get both on foot.
I wonder, also, whether he shares Sir Peter's reservations about raising the limit for small claims to £5,000. That will inevitably mean that more people will represent themselves in disputes. Is he satisfied that the necessary training is available, and that the necessary resources are available to help people help themselves? Those are important questions. I do not ask the noble and learned Lord to respond to them all now. However, I hope that in the course of the next six months, when he reports to this House, he will be able to keep us abreast of his thinking in this area.
The single most imaginative part of the proposals—and here I share entirely the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu—is the proposal relating to a community legal service. Just as preventive medicine makes us a healthier society, so advising people about their rights before they get into deep trouble will make us a less litigious society. As the noble Baroness rightly said, that must be a good thing for a modern liberal democracy.
I also believe that we have, in principle, to endorse the contractual approach that the noble and learned Lord laid out briefly, but rather tellingly, by explaining the
110
way in which the state should relate in future to the provision of legal services. If I have a reservation about the way in which that might operate, it is this. Inevitably, in such a contractual relationship, the state will be in a very powerful position and will, perhaps on occasions, give in to the temptation to make unconscionable bargains. I should therefore like to know more about the contractual framework. What kind of rights will the private sector side which participates in such contracts have? What limitations will there be on the state to impose conditions? We have heard a great deal about overpaid lawyers. But at the largest part of the Bar, the criminal Bar, there is a large number of underpaid lawyers. I believe it is extremely important that their interests are properly represented.
If I have one reservation about the noble and learned Lord's overall approach to the subject, it is with regard to what I would describe as his excessive cynicism towards his own profession. Our history is littered with examples of disinterested lawyers who sacrifice their livelihoods to pursue matters of principle. I can see no logical reason why the legal profession should have baser motives than any other profession. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord has himself displayed throughout his distinguished professional career many examples of disinterested behaviour. I heard with great interest the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, describe the role of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in employment cases. And, if I may add a lighter touch, he spent five years as shadow Lord Chancellor. I hope he will not be tempted to ascribe baser motives to other members of the profession when he has himself exhibited such laudable ones.
When discussing his relationship to the Treasury, the noble and learned Lord said that his proposals for reform were not Treasury-driven. Anyone who heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byron, must agree that that is so. Of all the areas of legal aid, civil legal aid is the most cost-efficient, particularly in relation to cases which have money remedies. We cannot be sure because we have not seen the accounts, but it has been said—by the noble Lord, Lord Byron, and by others—that that part of the legal aid system washes its own face. If the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were Treasury-driven, he would be looking not at that aspect of civil legal aid but at family law, criminal law and many aspects of disputes between the citizen and the state, such as immigration law. However, the noble and learned Lord has either left those areas completely alone or dealt with them less fundamentally than the area of civil law.
I was particularly struck by the noble and learned Lord's comments about the application of the 75 per cent. principle in disputes between the citizen and the state; I do not disapprove. He talked about differential hurdles; I believe he is absolutely right. Many of the most important welfare decisions, such as decisions on housing and immigration, would never have been taken in our courts had the 75 per cent. principle applied, because they would never have reached the courts.

111
I applaud his approach to public law disputes between the citizen and the state and endorse what so many noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have said about it.
However, the principle of access to justice does not discriminate between the incarceration of the individual and the expropriation of his property. Effectively preventing individuals from pursuing money remedies in the courts because they have no means of doing so unless they are supported by public funding is an act of expropriation; they cannot obtain property they are entitled to. I am not sure that making a distinction in terms of access to justice between remedies under public law and remedies under private law is justified.
If the noble and learned Lord applied the 75 per cent. test to his own approach to the proposals that he has outlined, and which he intends to introduce by April 1998, I do not believe that they would pass. It is not that I think that they will not work; it is just that there is not yet sufficient evidence in front of us to prove that they will. I share the views of noble Lords who have said, "Let us give it a little more time to see whether the system will work".
Indeed, I believe there is a very good chance that it will work in straightforward personal injury cases. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and many other noble Lords said. But when it comes to much more complicated medical negligence cases, it will fail disastrously unless the approach suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is adopted of starting off with legal aid, and then baling out when it is clear that there is an appropriate chance of success—and the way forward is clear-cut. In those circumstances the Lord Chancellor's proposals could be allowed to come into operation.
I am also influenced by the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and many other noble and learned Lords in relation to the CLAF proposals. They will sit well alongside both our traditional system and the conditional fee system if some variable formula can be introduced in relation to the proportion of damages that is paid back into the fund. That is a matter that can be worked on. If I am proved wrong, well and good. But it certainly deserves much more thought before we plumb for one system rather than another.
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with me when I say that we are deeply indebted to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for bringing these proposals before us. I am sure that I can say with confidence that we all hope that we will be kept in touch with the development of his thinking over the months ahead.
9.47 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. It has been interesting and profitable and I listened to every word. The Government welcome constructive comments on their proposals. Our minds are open to innovative ideas and new solutions. We claim no monopoly on good ideas. We acknowledge that our proposals for the reform
112
of legal aid are controversial in some quarters; they are certainly radical, and the two often go together. We are about looking for radical new solutions to old problems.
Your Lordships will forgive me if I do not at this late hour take an inordinate time to do justice to all the valuable contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, charges that I propose to dismantle a vital social service and inhibit access to civil justice. That is the opposite of my object. My object is to save and to enlarge access to justice; not to bury it. He attacks a merits test of 75 per cent. I say this. I would not litigate with less prospects of success than 75 per cent. and would probably require a good deal better. I say further that any sensible plaintiff would be well advised to do the same.
Just think of the grief and pain associated with litigation that one loses. I agree with my noble friend Lady Mallalieu that often the best advice is not to litigate. Around 83 per cent. of serious medical negligence cases that fight lose. We heard a great deal about the brain damaged child; but think of the grief and pain of losing 83 per cent. of those cases.
Nor do I see why the state should fund cases which sensible people would not support out of their own funds. Think too, as some noble Lords have addressed—and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, drew attention to it—of the unfairness to a defendant who is sued by a plaintiff with full legal aid and the plaintiff loses. The defendant has succeeded but whistles for his costs. Under our proposals the plaintiff's insurers will have to pay those costs so that major injustice will disappear. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, emphasised that important point. I agree with her. I insist that these steps are not being taken to reduce the cost of legal aid to the Exchequer. They are designed to bring the cost under effective control, not to increase or decrease the legal aid budget in real terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, quoted my description of the legal aid system as, "a highly successful public social service". I said that in my keynote address to the annual conference of the Bar in 1996. I agree with it and I want to make it an even more successful social service. The noble Lord suggested that I had not referred to the ethical dangers perceived by some in relation to conditional fee agreements. In fact, I did refer to them. I spoke of how some saw these as putting the integrity of lawyers and their duty to the court under stress. I said that I rely on the ethics of the legal profession, which are strongly enforced.
Poor people will gain access to conditional fee agreements if they have strong cases. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that he tells his clients to proceed only if he thinks that they have even or better than even prospects of success. His modesty is well known and his success rate should have made him more confident. He should have given robuster and stronger advice. I have read far too many opinions by lawyers which are of the "on the one hand" or "on the other hand" variety, when greater precision is what clients deserve.
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and disagree, with respect, with the noble and leaned Lord, Lord Simon. I deprecate

113
opinions which say that a case is arguable, or reasonably arguable, whatever that means. Lawyers should offer a precise quantification. That is always what I did myself, so no doubt it was bad for business. I told people if I was confident that they would lose their cases. Then no doubt they went off to some lawyer whom they believed to be more sympathetic to their case who told them they would win. Then no doubt they lost and blamed an unsympathetic judge for the outcome.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before being so confident about offering a precise quantification, should the noble and learned Lord remember that there are many rich bookies?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do indeed remember that. But all one should say is that this has not less then a 75 per cent. prospect of success. I personally would not find it a very difficult exercise to say that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, expressed deep disappointment with my attitude to civil legal aid. I have always known that the noble and learned Lord, for whom I have a high regard, and I would not agree on everything all of the time. I accept that the Lord Chancellor should fight his corner for justice. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord was pressing the betrayal button rather early on in his speech. I am not a handmaid or a manservant of the Treasury. I repeat that the costs of legal aid will neither be reduced nor increased in real terms but will be refocused on the most vulnerable in society.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mishcon for pointing out that it is middle income Britain that is shut out from access to justice by the present rules. That is what my conditional fees proposed extension specifically addresses. None of your Lordships, with the exception of those who have advocated a CLAF, has addressed any specific means of bringing middle-income Britain—the great majority of people in our country—in from the cold. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that that is the way in which I intend to bring in middle-income Britain. That will be one hundred times better than the present state of affairs where it is simply excluded.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Why cannot these people be brought in without dismantling the legal aid system? That is what I cannot understand.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no money to bring them into the legal aid system. That is the short answer. Legal aid for middle-income Britain must take its place in the queue of other candidates for scarce public resources such as schools and hospitals. I am not persuaded that the country would prefer to spend more money on legal aid for middle-income Britain than more money on schools and hospitals. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the proposition that this is probably the only way forward.
114
It is said that the gap in the programme is the matter of the other side's costs, the insurance premiums, disbursements and the like. Conditional fee agreements are profitable contracts for solicitors when they win cases. Every other business incurs investigation costs in assessments of the potential for profitable investment in order to decide whether to enter into a contract on the basis that it is likely to prove profitable. It is only lawyers, reared in a legal aid culture, who are paid, win, lose or draw and who want to be exempt from what every other business in the country would regard as an ordinary business cost to be borne by the business to investigate whether a particular contract is worth their commercial interest to enter into.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for allowing me to intervene. He has said repeatedly, "every other business". Is he drawing no distinction between businesses and professions, or are they all to be treated alike?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I draw no distinction between lawyers as a business and other businesses from the standpoint of determining whether it is right that they themselves should bear the cost of investigating whether it is commercially right for them to enter into contracts as part of their business on the footing that they are profitable.
I enjoyed the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. It is undoubtedly refreshing to have non-lawyers contributing to our arcane discussions about contentious legal issues. I welcome the fact that many noble Baronesses chose to do that. It may be, as the noble Baroness said, that more research is required, and I am ready to consider that. But I remind her that the PSI research to which she referred accepted that many of the potential problems identified before conditional fees were introduced seemed to be successfully addressed. I shall certainly consider and take account of what she said about the need for monitoring. I shall consider carefully her proposal about monitoring damages to see that successful plaintiffs do not end up paying lawyers too much. It may be that a case will be made out for stronger regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, spoke in a supportive sense, although not unqualifiedly. He acknowledged that it may be unfortunate that lawyers are paid by the hour on a time basis because then they have an inevitable incentive to spin out cases. I take that to be implicit support, which I welcome, from the noble Lord for the fixed-fee contracting to which we shall be moving. Nothing concentrates the mind more than a fixed fee. Nothing operates more as a disincentive to spinning out costs.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, detected in the contributions of many of your Lordships a belief that justice is of infinite value and something on which the Treasury's cornucopia should be boundless. I repeat that I am not the handmaid or the manservant of the Treasury by declining to adopt such an impossible brief. I welcome the noble and learned Lord's realism. It makes his support that much more valuable. He says that the key is to give the lawyers a stake in the outcome

115
of the case so that costs are not unnecessarily driven up to the potential prejudice of their own pockets. I invite your Lordships to remember that if the lawyer has a stake in the outcome, he has an interest to work hard and effectively for his client to secure his own reward.
I welcome the general support of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I note her concern that some poor people presently protected by legal aid may fall out of protection. That is certainly not my intention. I note her apprehensions with regard to solicitors who have no fat but who provide a valuable service to the poorest parts of our country. My department is analysing the funding and the matter of insuring against the risks and costs of cases to enable me to be satisfied that lawyers will profitably take on poor people's cases. If I find that that is not possible in some cases, I shall of course consider how taxpayers' money might continue to help to fund such cases. That, too, is my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who expressed a similar concern.
I welcome the sympathy that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, expressed for the problems that I have inherited and his specific welcome to my proposals to go over to a system for contracting fixed fees.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, complained of an over-hasty substitution of conditional fee agreements, which, he claimed, were spoken of by almost all of your Lordships. We shall all read Hansard, but I do not regard what the noble Lord said as an accurate summary of our debate today. I have experienced broad support for many parts of my proposals from many quarters of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, supports a contingency legal aid fund. I listened carefully to the reasoned speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, supporting that proposition and I shall consider it with care. I note, too, the support for that proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
It is true that Sir Peter Middleton said that it is worth exploring CLAF. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, quoted Sir Peter and I agree with what he said, but I remind your Lordships that in his previous sentence Sir Peter wrote:
"My preference would be to emphasise the development of conditional fees, because they put the risk on those best able to manage it".
I have to confess that despite having listened to the arguments of those who favour a CLAF, I continue to have the reservations that I expressed in my opening speech. The Bar is still the main proponent, but it is still not ready to put before me the fully worked out scheme that I want and which I undertake to consider with great care when it is put to me. I hope to receive it very soon. But that is down to the Bar and not me.
The main argument in favour of CLAF was that the lawyers would always be paid. That is really the point. To my mind, CLAF does not have the merit of a stake in the outcome, which is the critical feature of conditional fee agreements and is an incentive to greater efficiency.
116
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, asked me a number of questions. I hope that he will permit me to write to him so that my reply to this debate is not of inordinate length. In my speech I dealt with the question of how to identify and deal with public interest cases. I said that they would include cases under the Human Rights Bill. I also said that cases brought in domestic courts under that Bill would, when that became law, be covered by the present legal aid system. Once the convention is incorporated, cases brought under it before the English courts will fall within the scope of the present legal aid scheme. Therefore, those bringing such cases, including prisoners, will have to meet the criteria that all civil legal aid applications must meet. It is no part of my intention to remove judicial review proceedings from legal aid. I hope that I have been as clear as I possibly can.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, a lesser merits test may well be appropriate for public interest cases. I have noted and will consider her sensible suggestion that the decision as to which cases go forward as meritorious should not necessarily be taken exclusively by lawyers but that people with a broader experience of the world should be included.
I welcome the generous expression of support for my proposals by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. It is particularly welcome coming as it does from a distinguished past Minister of State for Consumer Affairs and chairman of the National Consumer Council. I also welcome the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for my daring to grasp the nettle. It is a nettle that must be grasped. I also welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. She was kind enough to commend my courage for tackling this issue. She had the courage to survive as the general secretary of SOGAT. In response to her concerns I can inform her that recently I met the general secretary of the TUC, who was accompanied by distinguished trade union leaders. I am considering the representations that they have made to me about personal injury cases, particularly their concerns about a fixed cost regime in the fast track.
I apologise to your Lordships if any unattractive, anti-lawyer spin is being put on these proposals, but there are some truths about the fees earned from legal aid which simply must be told in the public interest. I like to believe that I am not cynical about my profession. I hope that I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist about legal practice but only a realist.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, raised some difficult questions on which I shall write to him. I do not attempt to give an authoritative answer this evening. But the very poor litigant may not want insurance because in practice a successful defendant will be unable to recover costs from him. Middle-income plaintiffs would, however, want insurance cover because it would be worth while for successful defendants to pursue them for costs. As to the more technical position of solicitors, I believe that they may be subject to a different risk if they take cases forward for uninsured plaintiffs. I believe—I shall confirm this—that a Court of Appeal judgment is awaited on the question of whether a solicitor may be legally liable to the defendant in these

117
circumstances for having maintained the action. I also say to the noble Viscount that I do not rule out the possibility that a green form, or special fund, may be created for cases where the investigation costs would be very high if no other alternatives could genuinely be found.
I welcome especially the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, thought it right to congratulate me on boldly tackling this, as he put it, intractable problem. I am grateful to him also for the measure of support that he felt able to give me from the Dispatch Box at which he stands.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, urges festina lente—hasten slowly. I do not wish to proceed with undue haste, but the Latin tag does not live happily with a state of affairs in which expenditure continues to grow at about 8 per cent. per annum—a rate well above inflation.
We are consulting widely. The contributions made by noble Lords today will help to shape the consultative documents which we shall be issuing. I shall gladly listen to any further views from your Lordships and others when those consultation papers are published.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, there is one matter with which he has not dealt in his comprehensive reply. It is the community legal service emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, myself and other speakers. I wonder whether he could make haste more quickly in that area by indicating to the House his timetable for giving effect to that important manifesto pledge.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that, too, is a matter upon which we shall be consulting and listening to representations. I hope to make a public announcement shortly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Drugs
10.12 p.m.
Lord Layton Lord Layton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the appointment of a "Drugs Czar" from the police force, what direction their policy will take and how the funding will be allocated.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was with a certain amount of misgiving that I read that the Government had appointed a "drugs czar" to head up their fight against drug addiction in this country. That is not because I have anything against Mr. Hellawell or his deputy, who both have the right credentials and, what is more, the right understanding necessary to deal with the problem. No, my objection is to the term "drugs czar", which imitates the title of Mr. Hellawell's counterpart in the US. They have had little joy with the anti-drugs programme over there. If the Government are thinking of following the direction of the American programme there is little hope of success. What is needed in this
118
country is a radical change in the approach by government. I shall lead up to that change, which is the main object behind the Question.
As a large part of the subject with which we are dealing concerns the illegal use of drugs, I shall speak briefly about the law and enforcement. On the whole. there is no point in prosecuting drug users for possession or use of drugs. In most cases they should be treated as victims rather than perpetrators of criminal activity. However, that said, they must take responsibility for any other criminal activities in which they take part. These days custodial sentences tend to lead to increased rather than diminished drug use, and will continue to do so while rehabilitation programmes in prison are inadequate and drugs are rife.
The full weight of the law should concentrate upon the suppliers of addictive substances at all levels. No police force in the world can hope completely to eradicate the supply of drugs, since they are fighting the most incredibly rich and powerful multinational organisations imaginable, but the fight can go on. The punishment inflicted upon suppliers must be draconian to discourage any participation in the trade.
One of the most serious and sad problems that besets the country at the moment is the consumption and abuse of alcohol by minors. Once again, the target should not be the children but the suppliers. Those who supply alcohol to minors should be treated in a mandatory way, using the same approach as is used against those who drink and drive. If a publican loses his licence and hence his livelihood that is a fitting punishment for his irresponsible behaviour. The laws as they stand need to be enforced, then perhaps some progress will be made.
I cannot agree with decriminalisation. The emphasis should be moved away from the user, but as cannabis is still a "gateway" drug suppliers should be punished. However, there should be a move away from the easier option of chasing cannabis towards the more difficult task of chasing the hard drugs.
The backbone of any drugs policy must be education, which must start at a very early age. Only by indoctrinating—and I mean indoctrinating—our children about the evils and ultimately degrading nature of drugs and drug dependency can we hope to secure their futures. They need to be taught these evils alongside the concepts of right and wrong, which everyone understands and accepts even though they may not adhere to them. Only by understanding inherently the harm which drugs can do to the self, like a baby quickly understands that flames burn, will the avoidance of drugs become second nature.
The second part of education that is of considerable importance is the education of ourselves; that is, you and I and the ordinary man in the street. We must understand that people with dependencies are victims—I use that word again—and that they need our compassion and not our approbation. People with dependencies are suffering and must be treated as such. They are as ill as the Aids or cancer sufferers. Would you turn your back on them? Perhaps I may read from something given to me by a person in recovery. I have had to change some of the words.

119
"First, you start using for pleasure and fun and it's good. Then you start using to take away negative feelings and it works for a bit—makes you feel better. Then it stops making you feel better and you realise that it is time to stop. Then you try and you realise you can't. And you don't feel any change when you use, and the pain doesn't go away, and you still can't stop. That is the most frightening thing of all".
Over the years, alcohol has become a more socially acceptable dependency. Society has seen enough of it to extend a helping hand perhaps because it is legal and, as many people say as they down a pint, "There but for the grace of God go I", and so forth. We must extend that helping hand to all colours of the dependency spectrum.
I turn to the third war zone in the fight against dependencies, which is rehabilitation. I call it a war zone because like all the previous aspects there are many separate battlefields. If education is the backbone surely rehabilitation is the heart. Rehabilitation is a very intense and long-drawn-out process. Most doctors agree that three months is probably the minimum time for effective treatment. As a result, it is a very costly affair.
In the early 1960s there were between 400 and 500 registered drug addicts in this country. At that time, about 100 NHS beds were available for specialist drug treatment with no time limit specified as to how long the treatment should last. By the end of that decade the number of addicts had increased to about 2,000 and had become the cause of concern.
Since then the number of addicts has risen more than 20-fold to more than 45,000—and that is a conservative estimate. Today there are about 100 NHS beds available for specialist drug treatment. And to say that there is a large number of beds available in general mental wards begs the question, as the treatment under those circumstances is on the whole inadequate and basically a waste of resources.
Luckily, the private sector has done very well during the past few years, expanding to meet the demands of the ever increasing problem. That is fine if you are a well-heeled drug user or your insurance company recognises your chosen treatment centre. But what of your average NHS drug addict? His chances of finding an NHS berth are remote and if he does, because of the enormous demand, the time allowed for treatment has been reduced from the no time limit, as in the 1960s, to, currently, 28 days with a great deal of consideration being given by management to a further reduction to 14 days. I prefer to make no comment on that.
If the NHS patient is lucky in where he lives, he will have a champion who will perhaps get him into the private sector with funding arranged through the addict's local council. It may still take months. And when he is in recovery, where does that vulnerable person go? If he relapses, his chances of being accepted into treatment are greatly diminished. Yet it is an accepted fact that sometimes treatment must be repeated several times, just like for the cancer patient who needs radiotherapy or chemotherapy.
Where does that person go when the treatment is finished? Protected housing is available but, unfortunately. it is not as protected as it claims to be.
120
Therefore, that is another avenue for funding by government and investment by the private sector.
Three main ingredients are needed in rehabilitation: first, crisis wards along the lines of the one at the Maudsley Hospital to catch the drug addict at his lowest point; secondly, funding for treatment—with the money available, the centres will follow; thirdly, funding through benefits for protected housing.
I shall take the second of those points as it most graphically highlights the problems. As I said before, treatment for dependency is an expensive and time-consuming occupation. Because of the uneven and at times non-existent funds available through local government's limited allocations, it is essential that central government handle the funding if rehabilitation is to be successful.
I should also like to see a change in the Government's policy in relation to the registration of counsellors as reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. on 4th November at col. 1321 of Hansard when she said that the Government have no plans to introduce statutory registration. Perhaps if the Government are involved in spending funds, they will insist that counsellors are registered and regulated as they always should have been.
But which ministry gets to spend whose funds and on what? The drugs problem crosses boundaries between health and education, social security and employment, and environment and the Home Office; and do not forget the Treasury. How can any solution be found if those boundaries are not eliminated? How can any drugs czar expect to carry out any policy if he has no executive power?
The drugs czar in the United States is a perfect example of that failure. Although its programme has not been successful for the reasons I have stated, the Americans have come up with some extremely robust statistics about rehabilitation. For every one dollar per day spent on keeping an addict in treatment, whether he relapses or not, the savings in terms of health, law enforcement and all the ancillaries is seven dollars per day. There is a short-term answer that serves also to solve the long-term situation: make funding available; saturate the market with treatment centres; and look at the savings to be made. But unless the government can make the necessary radical changes and invest the programme with executive powers, any drugs policy they have will be nothing but window dressing.
I should now like to thank all noble Lords who have waited so long to speak in the debate. I leave it to them to put some flesh on my bones. I await with great interest the noble and learned Lord's reply for the Government.
10.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House and for the helpful

121
encouragement and advice that I have been most kindly given by the Officers of the House, both before and since my introduction.
The appointment of the new anti-drugs co-ordinator has been greeted with some dismay and concern in the West Yorkshire area of my diocese. We are dismayed at losing an excellent chief constable and we are concerned lest, through lack of adequate support for him in terms of policy and funding, our loss will turn out to have been in vain.
As the noble Lord, Lord Layton, indicated, there is no doubt that Mr. Hellawell has the experience and the vision required for the job. Long before it was fashionable, he was advocating special drugs courts which would not simply send people to prison but would sentence them to be treated for their addiction. The sadly increasing drug problem for which he is to recommend a new national strategy is certainly evident in my west and south Yorkshire area: young girls who, in order to pay for crack cocaine, become prostitutes as young as 12; and experimentation with heroin which is also starting among 12 year-olds.
In one area of my diocese there has been a 300 per cent. increase in heroin use since 1992. A kilo of heroin bought in Liverpool for £18,000 will, when sold to our local people, produce profits totalling £250,000. I am very distressed that one of my parishes, once famed for its colliery, is now known as the heroin capital of south Yorkshire.
The reasons why people become addicted to heroin are complex; and I know that it is not true that deprivation and high unemployment inevitably link with illicit drug use. Nevertheless, those of us who know these coalfield communities well can see the obvious correlation between this new level of addiction and the sudden and tragic devastation of the local economy, which took place five years ago. Male unemployment in one of my pit villages is at 40 per cent. and, in some parts of it, 90 per cent. It is tragic that the bodies, minds and spirits of the young people there are being nurtured in such an atmosphere of hopelessness in which, of course, drugs find easy targets.
I am very concerned by the suggestion in the 19th September edition of the British Crime Survey that the focus of drug taking is now moving northwards—and that at a time when, nationally, the key level of primary contact on the ground with drug users has, for the most part, broken down. Effective co-ordination between those working with drug users happens all too rarely. Funding for local assessment and groundwork is, sadly, getting less. In Tower Hamlets a number of innovative projects, including those working with Asian drug users, have disappeared through cuts in health authority funding. I believe that there is a case for the excellent drug action teams to have more strategic influence over funding, and for the very good drug reference groups to have more drug users on them. I believe that I am right in saying that only 15 per cent. of them really have the opportunity to listen to people who are on drugs. We need to follow the practice in the United States which 1 hear is a very good practice of
122
"Street Voice" in Baltimore or "Outside" in Portland which are groups that actively listen to what drug users are saying.
The Church has long been active in such matters, not least in pressing, since the 1960s, for more education and preventive work; and, indeed, in reaching those who are detached from contact with existing services. Here I am thinking especially of detached young people. The Young Womens Christian Association's Maze project in the East End was funded to do precisely this by the former Urban Programme. Then the local health authority took over the funding, and cut its grant without warning. As a result young people who were being helped have now been further damaged.
It is youth workers who are often the first point of contact for the street drug user. Their informal style of education, and informal pastoral support, are absolutely crucial to the kind of tasks that Mr. Hellawell has been appointed to perform. But the youth service is claimed to have been so seriously underfunded as to be near its demise, and certainly not capable of giving the kind of support in that crucial area which Mr. Hellawell will certainly need.
The noble Lord, Lord Layton, has rightly emphasised the importance of aftercare and rehabilitation. During the 1960s many aftercare centres were run by Christian groups, one of which, the Coke Hole Trust in Andover, is still active. In fact it is the small, intensive residential group work which is so good for aftercare and rehabilitation. There are examples such as the excellent Langley House Trust which give good credence to that. But I am afraid that many others have collapsed, again through lack of funding on the ground. The director of the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence recently described rehabilitation as the Cinderella of the drug services. The whole story is remarkably sad. But all who are concerned with drug users on the ground know that their crucial work can be saved or wrecked by government policy and levels of funding.
I believe that the Government deserve to be congratulated on bringing into this uncertain area a drugs czar who has a welcome vision. But his vision will not become a reality unless the Government maintain a tough international policy on drugs and the evil syndicates; it will not become a reality unless the Government next year adopt a policy that is in tune with Mr. Hellawell's sensitively nuanced approach and his likely recommendations; and it will certainly not become a reality unless there is better co-ordinated and adequate local funding for the workers and agencies who are there on the ground alongside those who are at risk or already addicted. Without such levels of support he may find it impossible to do his job. Were that to happen, we would like our chief constable back!
10.33 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree with me that we have heard a most excellent maiden speech. It is not for nothing that the right reverend Prelate is known as the people's Bishop; that is very fitting in the days of new Labour. He is a man who gets about. Although he now proudly displays his

123
West Yorkshire badge, he is of course a Lancastrian who likes Yorkshire. He has been in many places round the country, Taunton, Sarum, and now Wakefield. He is a radical in many respects in many Church matters, as I am sure many noble Lords know. I believe that his speech today indicates that he will contribute many times to our debates. I welcome him to our House.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Layton, for tabling this Question. I must declare an interest: I chair a management committee of a charity, City Roads, which is a 24 hour, pan-London service which treats drug addicts. Drug addicts are referred to us and we have a small number of beds. We look after addicts and reassimilate them into the community. I am glad to say that the return rate is not high. In many senses, the community consists of some of the most deprived people. Drug addiction, especially in the cities, has race and gender dimensions. With women addicts, there is the welfare of children to consider.As the noble Lord, Lord Layton, and the right reverend Prelate said, on the issue of drug addiction, health, social security, environment and crime are interrelated.
Let me say that we welcome the appointments of Mr. Hellawell, and Mr. Trace. We must not forget that this is a balanced ticket. I do not like the word "czar". The Americans have a misconception that czars were efficient kings. They may have had a lot of authority; they were often cruel; but they were never efficient. Therefore "czar" is not a good word to use. I presume that "czar" is a vulgarisation of Caesar; at least we have a dual remit in Mr. Hellawell and Mr. Trace. Let us hope that together they will continue the national drug strategy, which is based on partnership.
At this late hour, I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time. Drugs misuse is a complex issue, as other noble Lords have said, and as many people know more than I do. From my limited experience as chairman of the management committee of the charity to which I referred, I know that when funding reforms take place in the health service or local authority, people often do not recognise that there are effects on the way we finance drug rehabilitation. For example, the charity now faces separate negotiations with all the London boroughs as well as all the London health authorities. If one London health authority has a budget problem it often finds that paying for drug misuse by one of the people in its community who comes from north London to City Roads is a marginal item. It is easy to cut it out.
If someone knocks on the door of a drug charity at one o'clock in the morning, we cannot say, "Are you from that part of London? We are not accepting you because your health authority is not paying us any money". It is a complex problem. I know that money is always short and that there are priorities. But in this area a small amount of money goes a long way at this stage. It makes good economic sense to invest in rehabilitation and treatment of drug misusers. If we treat them, many other costs which they might impose on society through crime, ill-health or unemployment are lessened. It is
124
sound economics to say that rehabilitation of a drugs misuser deserves good funding because it is an efficient use of our money.
Some noble Lords will have been present when my noble friend Lady Jay made a Statement about the new White Paper on the National Health Service. She spoke of the Berlin Wall between health and social services which had to be broken down. I entirely welcome that. In the field of drugs misuse it is important that we break that wall down.
Again, experience shows that there are considerable problems for such people in being able to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. The paperwork has increased enormously in recent years. And, sad to say, the Government are notoriously late payers of outstanding bills. It is a matter that I have often taken up with Ministers both in this Government and the previous one. It is important when drug policy is co-ordinated, both at government level and by means of the new appointments, that we examine this question. We should make quite sure that those agencies—especially local agencies—that do the very hard work of looking after drug misusers are at least adequately funded, and that they are not undermined and do not have obstacles put in their way by way of delay, changes in regulations or arbitrary cuts in the funding to which they are entitled.
I welcome the appointment of Mr. Hellawell and Mr. Trace. They will have to take a rounded view of the multifarious and complex issues raised by the drugs question. They will have to take an independent, strategic view of the problem. I hope, too, that they will be able to elicit the co-operation of all the government departments to which they can appeal to solve this problem. In saying that, I welcome the initiative.
10.41 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Layton, for launching this debate. It is particularly opportune because of the Government's appointment of the two drug czars. I was most encouraged to hear Keith Hellawell describe the brief that he and Michael Trace had been given. He explained that it included a review of the national drug strategy, to be published in April, and that 200 of the key players in the drugs field had been asked for their views. He went on to say that his report would consider a broad range of views, it would be honest and realistic, and would identify best practice and programmes that were succeeding. So far, so good. However, I was disappointed that a review of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act was not in their remit. I know that a detailed study of that Act is under way, but that report will not be out for 20 months, and to update the national drugs strategy without referring to that 26 year-old Act, which has proved seriously flawed, would seem difficult.
The 1971 Act was a reaction to an increase in opiate use, over-prescription by a few doctors and the need to harmonise national laws with the American-inspired 1961 UN single convention on narcotic drugs. The British system, under which doctors could prescribe a maintenance dose of a Class A drug such as heroin or

125
cocaine, was virtually over. So addicts turned to the black market. We had finally accepted that the American solution, prohibition, was the only way of tackling drug problems. Under the Act, any new psycho-active recreational drug which proved dangerous and had no medical use was banned. A medical committee was established as a referee.
The conventional wisdom was that if medical experts said that a drug was dangerous, and if it was made illegal, people would avoid it. The problem would simply wither on the vine. The opposite has happened. What we failed to appreciate was that that approach works with therapeutic drugs but not with psycho-active and recreational drugs. Human beings have always used these drugs to alter the conscious state. It is part of the human condition. It is normal. We are a very inquisitive species, and when new drugs have appeared we have experimented with them, and if they fill a gap they become part of the repertoire. The introduction of tobacco from America is a classic example.
Prohibition is a very unsubtle method of drug control. Not only does it not work very well, but it ensures that the black market will flourish. The result, since 1971, with the world shrinking to a global village, has been a staggering increase in the availability of illegal drugs. The UN 1997 World Drug Report estimates the trade at £250 billion, an eighth of world trade. In this country the number of drug offenders dealt with has gone up from 7,000 in 1969 to 94,000 in 1995 and the quantity of heroin seized has gone up from 3.2 kilograms in 1973 to 1,390 kilograms in 1995.
Are there more intelligent ways of dealing with the drug problem? First, we must assess the problem. The Home Office crime statistics tell the story from the drugs seized and the persons convicted. Of the six most widely used drugs, two stand out: cannabis, which accounts for 80 per cent. of the seizures and convictions; and heroin, which, though only comprising 5 per cent. of drug offences, makes up 90 per cent. of the notified cases of addiction and causes the same amount of drug-related crime.
First, cannabis: we must ask ourselves why cannabis was classified as a dangerous drug in the first place. After all, it has been around for a very long time. Both its medical and recreational qualities have been known for several thousand years. The classification happened largely by accident. In 1925 there was an international conference in Geneva concerned with controlling opiates. Largely thanks to an emotional outburst from the Egyptian delegate concerning cannabis, it was included in the ban. It was not a decision based on scientific evidence. Cannabis was successfully demonised in America in the 1930s and has remained on the classified list ever since.
In 1968 the report of the Wootton Committee, set up by the Government to advise on cannabis, was published. The committee found no evidence that cannabis led to crime or aggressive behaviour, nor that it produced psychotic states in otherwise normal users. The report concluded:
126
"Having reviewed all the material available to us, we are in agreement with conclusions reached by the India Hemp Drugs Commission and the American La Guardia report that the long term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects".
Unfortunately, society at the time could not accept those findings and, largely because cannabis was seen as the gateway to hard drugs, the ban remained.
The Dutch, who have a pragmatic approach to social problems and treat drugs as primarily a medical and social issue, had studied the various reports and in 1975 decided to decriminalise cannabis—to separate clearly soft and hard drugs. Licensed coffee shops, strictly regulated, can sell a small quantity, 5 grams, of cannabis for personal use. The policy works. The consumption of cannabis has risen, though not dramatically. Holland has an estimated 675,000 cannabis users out of a population of 15 million—far fewer than in this country. The glamour has been taken away and the authorities estimate that only between 1 and 2 per cent. of heavy users (those using it 10 or more times a month) have problems serious enough to go to a drug clinic.
The Dutch have also disproved the gateway theory. In Holland hard drug use is the lowest in Europe, at 1.6 per cent. of the population. The figure for this country is 2.6 per cent. and for the rest of Europe 2.7 per cent. Here I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Layton. The principal gateway drugs to heroin are much more likely to be alcohol and tobacco.
The present position is that cannabis is quietly becoming normalised. An estimated 6 million to 7 million people in this country have tried it and almost all have found it a benign experience. Public attitudes are also changing. In 1983, 82 per cent. of the public thought that cannabis should remain illegal. Ten years later the figure was down to 58 per cent. In a poll in the Mirror in October this year nearly two-thirds were in favour of decriminalisation. The campaign in the Independent on Sunday—in which I must declare an interest as a signatory—has highlighted that there is a thoughtful and informed minority who feel that the law must change because on the evidence it is clear that cannabis is not a particularly dangerous drug.
The authoritative report by the BMA on the therapeutic uses of cannabis is bound to fuel the pressure for change. When it happens, and drug offences are reduced by 80 per cent., it will be easier to concentrate on what I believe is the most serious drug problem we have, namely the growth of heroin addiction.
It is vital to increase the network of clinics to treat whole addiction; to treat addicts either on methadone or, if that does not work, on heroin, as was practised successfully by Dr. Marks on Merseyside in the late 1980s. His approach dramatically reduced the amount of drug-related crime and the rate of new addictions. The Swiss have done the same very successfully since 1994, and a recent referendum was 70 per cent. in favour of the continuation of that policy. We must move away from prohibition and concentrate more on harm reduction. We must move towards the far more successful Dutch approach based on a more pragmatic public health oriented policy.
10.50 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Layton, and congratulate him on his choice of Unstarred Question. It is a vitally important subject.
I know that Keith Hellawell is an excellent and forward-looking police chief, but by choosing a policeman as the "drugs czar", the Government send out a message that their concept of the drug problem is basically one of law and order. To use a name for the new drugs chief which is American, despite its Russian, or even further back perhaps, its Roman origins, suggests that the whole approach to drugs will have a transatlantic flavour.
The war on drugs started in the United States. It has been expensive but remarkably ineffective, though it is true that crack cocaine use in the United States is now declining. That may simply be that users have discovered that crack is a bad-tempered drug that has little to commend it. What is clear is that the campaign against drugs, particularly cocaine, in the USA and in Latin America has been hugely expensive but totally ineffective in curbing the supply and the enormous profits of the major dealers. In fact, those have steadily increased over the years, as the right reverend Prelate, in an excellent maiden speech, pointed out to us.
The cocaine trade and the US-backed efforts to control it are playing a major part in prolonging and deepening the violence on the streets of American cities and in many Latin American countries, particularly Colombia, about which we heard in the Unstarred Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, a month ago.
Phrases that are much bandied about when talking about drugs—we have heard them this evening—are "demand reduction" and "harm reduction" in the context of the existing legislation of prohibition. Demand reduction depends on education in an attempt to dissuade young people from experimenting and starting with drugs, and treatment to get dependent people off drugs. Sadly, there is little evidence that health education messages have much effect, and they may even be counter-productive. While some treatment programmes can claim success, it is mainly with addicts who have already decided that it may be time to stop.
In the context of the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, can the Minister say whether treatment centres are likely to expand and receive more secure financial support in the future? I echo my noble friend Lord Desai in that regard. There is sound evidence from the United States (the CALDATA programme in 1992) that money spent on treatment in the community is well spent, both in reducing demand and, more particularly, in reducing crime: $290,000 spent on treatment resulted in an estimated saving of $1.5 billion in California, a similar figure to that given by the noble Lord.
Can my noble friend also say whether Her Majesty's Government have heard and understood the plea of SCODA for a more enlightened sentencing policy for those convicted of drug-related offences? It is far more cost-effective to put those offenders into appropriately managed treatment units than into mainstream prisons,
128
where they are likely not only to continue their habit but to sell drugs to other prisoners, who only too literally form a captive market.
Harm reduction—reducing damage to the health of the addict and damage to society through acquisitive and violent crime—may consist of giving a substitute drug. such as methadone, instead of heroin to those who are finding withdrawal otherwise impossible. Unfortunately, methadone itself is not a safe drug, so that, according to Home Office figures, deaths from misused methadone are now as high as those from street heroin. When controlled supplies of heroin itself—through reefers, if possible, to avoid injecting—were given to long-term addicts in the Wirral, a remarkable fall in the local crime rate was observed, as the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, pointed out, as well as an end to local drug-related deaths and hospital admissions. This was one of the few examples of the use today of the British or Rolleston system, named after the chairman of the committee which reported in 1926, and which worked perfectly well from 1926 until the 1960s, when it was then superseded by the more prohibitive Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This was brought in under the influence of a more puritanical American approach. It restricts the supply of maintenance drugs to known addicts and tries to wean them off drugs even when their motivation is lacking. Sadly, the psychiatrist Dr. John Marks, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, whose clinic was using the Rolleston approach in Widnes until 1993, was then prevented from continuing to use it by the local health authority, with the result that several deaths from the use of street heroin have since occurred in that area. The reduction in crime and the reduction in new heroin use which had been achieved due to the end of the need for addicts to go in for "pyramid selling" to support their habit—I am sure my noble friend knows what "pyramid selling" is—was sent into reverse.
My own belief, as one who has had many drug addicts as patients over a long professional life, is that current legislation on drugs needs scrutiny, perhaps leading to a fundamental review. This view is shared by an increasing number of people whose work brings them into contact with problem drug use—doctors, police chiefs, social workers and judges, including no less than the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, himself, who has suggested that there should be an inquiry into the operation of the law in this area.
The danger to the individuals who use drugs and to society comes from the fact that drugs are prohibited, so that their composition and strength cannot be controlled. The use of the drugs themselves, if they were available in a pure state, in known dosage, would cause far fewer problems. This applies to "hard" drugs as well as to "soft" drugs, though there are some synthetic preparations that do have dangers even in low dosage—crack cocaine, lysergic acid (LSD) and possibly methadone. Cannabis, as well as having its well known effects in reducing anxiety and inducing a pleasant mild euphoria, has been shown, as the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, pointed out, in a recent BMA monograph, to have considerable therapeutic uses; as an analgesic, a

129
bronchodilator and anti-nauseant, particularly for patients with cancer. Unlike alcohol, it is associated with affability and friendship rather than aggression. In the long term there are some worries about paranoia, memory loss and carcinogenesis. However, it is difficult to undertake the epidemiological studies that are needed to confirm or deny the extent of these possible dangers when possession of the substance concerned is illegal.
To legalise or decriminalise the possession of a substance does not necessarily mean that its consumption will rise, especially with a substance like cannabis which any school child can quite easily obtain as things are. The evidence from Holland appears to be that, among Dutch people at least, the consumption of cannabis has not actually risen. The rise in consumption mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, is probably due to consumption by visitors. More importantly, the consumption of heroin has definitely fallen. Unfortunately, an enlightened policy in one country alone will run into difficulties because, as has happened in Holland, it will act as honey to a bee to visitors from more restrictive homelands.
That is why it is encouraging to hear another voice in favour of decriminalisation from across the Channel, from the French Minister for health. But, as with global warming and paying for the United Nations, the chief influence acting against progress lies on the other side of the Atlantic. That may seem surprising, perhaps, considering the disastrous experience of the prohibition of alcohol which occurred in the United States in the 1920s.
Offering a legal supply through registered outlets would make it possible to control the quality of the product and to get an accurate measure of how much is consumed. That is of greater importance for drugs other than cannabis, especially those which are injected or ingested, such as heroin or ecstasy. To use such drugs, bought from suppliers who have only a very approximate idea of their strength, and who may have adulterated it themselves, is to trust one's life to dangerous amateurs. Yet so great is the need or curiosity of millions of younger people that they take this risk cheerfully every week. They do that despite the law and the establishment telling them that it is wrong and dangerous. The slogan "Just say no" is about as helpful with regard to drug use as it is as a method of contraception.
In calling for a fundamental review of drugs policy, I am not calling for a free-for-all; quite the contrary. Supplies should be carefully controlled through registered outlets, with a more restricted supply of the drugs which have known potentially harmful effects. As well as doing away with the scourge of drug related crime virtually at one stroke, deaths and serious illness due to drugs would stop and the international drug smuggling mafiosi would suddenly find that their market had disappeared. And even if prices came down as much as 75 per cent. there would still be a large sum to be collected by the Government in excise revenue instead of the current, large expenditure on policing our ineffective drug legislation. This legislation, to steal a phrase from "Hamlet",
"is a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance".
130
When that can be said about the law of the land, that law is surely an ass and needs to be changed.
11.2 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, there should rightly be a concerted call for a worldwide war against drugs. That is without doubt the challenge for the millennium. The narcotic evil that brings misery around the world, not only in life deterioration through addiction, but in the vast profits which fund instability through terrorist campaigns around the world, combine an essence of the policy of this Government. They are to be congratulated.
Drugs and terrorism are a lethal mix, and both are certainly in the national interest to fight. But I believe that we should hear more of the detail of the Government's policy and I hope that tonight is the night.
This evening I wish to introduce a simple premise: without precursor chemicals there would be no cocaine or heroin. The second reality is that the majority of precursor chemicals that end up in the hands of illicit drug producers come in greater part from the principal consuming nations.
So if we are ever going to be serious about the drug curse, what are we going to do about this? I do not single out the United Kingdom as being especially at fault. I suspect that we do more than most, but that said, this is an undeniable problem area and, most importantly, is where we can make a real difference contributing in the international fight against drugs—here in our own backyard.
I do believe that the European Union should be doing much more to have all member states agreeing to a concerted programme and with the United Kingdom having the presidency from the New Year, presents us with an ideal opportunity to take a decisive lead.
A major goal has to be preventing the diversion of precursor chemicals for the illicit manufacture of drugs such as cocaine and heroin, and synthetic drugs such as ecstasy and amphetamines. I somehow sense that there are too many loopholes in UK anti-drug legislation, combined with which our Customs and Excise, together with specialist police units, such as the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) have a next-to-impossible task as things stand. They simply do not have the resources to follow through on a precursor campaign.
I find it staggering that NCIS has only three police officers, one Home Office analyst and a Customs and Excise official in its dedicated precursor chemical unit, combined with which there is no dedicated unit at the Home Office. Ministers must, in my view, be encouraged to consider this as a matter of urgency.
Another area that needs attention is the essential statutory requirement that a pre-export notification of movement of chemicals is established to include all shipments originating from the European Union to third countries. Licence procedures must be in place to ensure that failure to have such would constitute an offence.
Other measures could encompass the control of glassware that is necessary for the production of controlled drugs. In the United States, for example, it is

131
an offence to possess three-necked flasks without full authority. In addition, we should consider also that it be unlawful to possess certain category precursors. Similar legislation is in place in the Netherlands.
Is the Minister also aware that a precursor chemical company does not need to co-operate with police in controlled deliveries? That is considered unhelpful and is an omission from the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act. The Act should be revised to reflect this, together with other matters, and generally given more teeth. For example, there are no formal disclosure laws of the need to inform the police of suspicious transactions such as exists in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act for money-laundering, where there are offences for non-disclosure and non-compliance. Will the Minister undertake to consider amending the Act in such a way as would make it more effective, but paying attention to ensure that it is not then made overly cumbersome?
Perhaps I may say a word on Customs and Excise. It has an often horrendous task to deal with. It is poorly equipped, for example, to deal with the hazardous nature of its work, misdescribed chemicals being a case in point. Adequate on-site field testing, training and protective clothing are required. Again, will the Minister undertake to look at this?
I can recommend that the Government study the MOU between the International Council of Chemical Associations and the World Customs Organisation. It sets useful guidelines. Commercial operators must be more vigilant and legally have a duty to alert competent authorities about any suspicious transactions. Operators must be required to maintain records and documents for all transactions for a period considerably longer than three years and there is a case for examining whether a more strict licensing regime should be introduced. All exports must be made contingent on the issuance of an export permit, with the exporting country requiring exporters to identify accurately ultimate consignees, as well as intermediaries such as brokers. Here there is a real difficulty that needs addressing. Brokers are a weak link.
The question has to be asked whether the UK chemical association has the will and even the capacity for self-regulation. I remain to be entirely convinced, but it has to be said that that is through no undue fault of its own. The association, for example, has approximately 200 or so members but how many manufacturers are there in the United Kingdom producing precursor chemicals and indeed, how many of those are brokers? To fight drugs effectively, mandatory registration would seem to me to be a must.
I am not brandishing the chemical association; it is made up of decent people and I have little doubt that they care as much as me about the international drug scourge. But the point is that they have conflicting allegiances with principally commercial interests at heart. They must consider the need to balance that with a recognition that the control of precursor chemicals is a principal concern of many, not least the drug-producing countries.
132
When I met the chemical association to prepare myself for this evening that body had the following to say, which I believe it is appropriate to share:
"It is our belief that the statutory controls are clear and robust, and that the most effective method of combating illicit use is to augment the controls through increased information, collaboration, education and constant alertness rather than through increased regulation".
I have already stated my view. I have a particular interest in such matters, in that Colombia is a country with which I am associated. I know something of its anti-narcotics efforts. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to suggest an initiative this evening that will undeniably help. Cannot the chemical industry work to introduce a signature in the chemicals manufactured that will enable anti-narcotics authorities to analyse seized precursors to establish country of origin and, ideally, producer origin? That would be a major step. Specific ports could also be designated for the loading and receipt of shipments of such substances. Prior to the departure of such shipments the authorities at the port of arrival could be informed of the route and itinerary of the shipments. Twenty-four hours' notice of the arrival of precursor chemicals might also usefully be given to the destination port.
How ready are the Government for the UN session in Vienna set for June next year? What proposals are they taking to the table? Do the Government now recognise that studies on the production, trafficking and use of precursor chemicals in illicit drug processing are urgently required in order that initiatives and suggestions can be considered? In addition, most countries are not even complying with stipulations in the convention signed in Vienna in December 1988. What is to be done about it? Does the Minister consider that further goals should be the strengthening and harmonisation worldwide of technical, judicial and economic agreements between countries?
In conclusion, much needs to be done. The more I probe the more I believe that we should consider legislation to allow greater governmental control over precursor chemicals. But to help determine this will the Minister undertake to organise a meeting between the Home Office, NCIS dedicated units, Customs and Excise and the chemicals association as a first step to see what could and should be done? He may also wish to have the views of the Colombian anti-narcotics authorities who are here in London to ensure that their ideas are factored in, as it is they who are in the frontline and who have as good a reason as any to see precursors effectively addressed.
11.13 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate and congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. Drugs are a menace to our society. We support any policy that is designed to take effective action against the demand for them and their supply. Drugs do not just ruin the lives of addicts but are a common cause of crime; therefore ruining the lives of others. The Conservative Party will help the Government build on our approach to reduce the amount, effect and consequences of drugs in our

133
society. We must ensure that an anti-drugs policy is concerned with educating young people about the dangers of drugs, as well as enforcement. The Government must also build on the work of drug action teams established by the previous government which are responsible for organising and co-ordinating the work of local authorities, health authorities, the police and the voluntary sector in the fight against drugs.
I welcome this opportunity for the Government and the Minister this evening clearly to outline the remit of the new drugs czar: how it is envisaged his role will develop and what his budget and powers will be. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that "drugs czar" may be a rather unfortunate title. Nevertheless, that is what we have. Much more important is what he will be able to do.
The social costs of drugs are horrific. They ruin the lives of addicts and families alike. They cause the destruction of a person's ability to cope with ordinary life; the destruction of a person's relationships; and the destruction of ordinary, decent families who do not understand what is happening when one of their members becomes addicted. Drug peddlers spread evil, affecting communities and neighbourhoods.
The illegal trade in drugs is becoming more and more violent as drug traffickers brutalise and corrupt the communities in which they operate. Drug-related crime includes not just possession, drug dealing and trafficking but offences such as theft and burglary which are committed by drug addicts to finance their addiction.
Drug dealers trade in human misery. They deserve tough sentences. We took action to ensure that they got them. Tackling drug-related crime and catching drug dealers are now major police priorities. Education is vital. Drugs are a problem in all schools, whether private or public, good or bad. Drugs are not discriminating. They can affect children from any background, whether rich or poor, employed or unemployed. Tougher penalties alone will not solve the drug problem.
Educating people, especially the young, about the dangers of drug abuse is important. It was the previous government who made drug education in schools compulsory as part of the national curriculum introduced by the Education Act 1988. It placed on school inspectors the duty to conduct inspections and scrutinise schools' drugs education classes and policies. They gave LEAs £6 million in 1996 to train teachers in drugs education. They gave over £1 million to train youth service workers to tackle drug abuse among the young.
Those steps were crucial. I should like to hear from the Minister this evening that funding for such programmes will continue. As part of our anti-drugs strategy, £8.5 million was provided to 100 drugs action teams across the country. Those teams were responsible for organising and co-ordinating anti-drugs initiatives at local level. They work with local authorities, health authorities, the police and the voluntary sector. Will the Government continue with that initiative and funding? How will the drugs action teams relate to the post of drugs czar?
134
There has always been a problem with drugs misuse in prisons. All prisons have now introduced mandatory drug testing schemes and random drug testing programmes. Will the Minister say something about the result of those programmes and whether drug problems in prisons will fall within the remit of the drugs czar?
It is not just a matter of educating the youth of our country; it is educating the public as a whole about the dangers of drug abuse. Young people are vulnerable, but it has been shown that they value highly the drugs education that they receive. It helps them, because drugs pose a fatal risk to the health of anyone who uses them.
Perhaps I might say a word on the debate about legalising or decriminalising drugs. We believe that the legalisation of any drugs would be a disaster. The inevitable result would be that more young people would be put at risk. Drug taking would become a legitimate activity. The legalisation of drugs such as marijuana or cannabis would not reduce drug-related crime. That applies also to decriminalisation. There is no doubt that soft drugs lead to hard drugs.
There might be cases with special medical circumstances. We have read in the press that marijuana, for example, might help with some diseases, but we have to be firm about this. In that I declare an interest as the father of teenaged children. All of us with teenaged children know that those children, during their education in their schools and during their holidays, have been faced with a decision when someone offers them drugs. It has happened to almost every child in the land. It is universal. If we do not hold the line we shall open the floodgates to a terrible situation.
I understand that the remit of the drugs czar extends to Scotland. The noble and learned Lord, with his particular knowledge of Scotland, will be able to explain that and whether the drugs czar will be funded in Scotland and Wales. Will the proposals for devolution change that? Will he be answerable to two parliaments?
I do not wish to speak at length tonight; the hour is late. The key question was posed by my noble friend Lord Layton and we look forward to hearing the Minister's answer. What will be the executive powers of the drugs czar? What will his funding, role and powers be? Without the necessary powers to do the job he will not be a success.
We on this side of the House support any initiative which works in the fight against drugs. If the Government can demonstrate that the initiative will work, we look forward to supporting it.
11.21 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Layton, for giving the House the opportunity to consider this important subject. I add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield on his well-informed and moving maiden speech. Tonight's contributions have been informative, well-informed and helpful and I hope to refer to them all in a moment. However, perhaps I may first respond directly to the Question, set out the Government's

135
general policy in relation to drugs and deal in particular with the role of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator, if I may call him that rather than the drugs czar.
I turn, first, to the basics. It is this Government's view that drugs are a major menace in our society. They can destroy individuals who are dependent on or involved in them. They can destroy an individual's life chances at a time and at an age when society should be helping him through a vulnerable and difficult period. Drugs demoralise and undermine the families of those involved. They threaten whole communities where the evil of drug dealing becomes a bullying, threatening, destroying presence over an estate or area where dealers dominate or they become a warped role model for those whose lives are brought down by drugs or deprivation. They are a most potent motive for crime and a sweeper aside of responsibility, which causes crime. No one should for one moment consider that this Government are not wholly committed to standing up and fighting against the menace of drugs.
Enforcement has an important part to play in that fight; but so, too, does the treatment of those addicted, the education of those who may be affected and the prevention of children and young people becoming involved. They recognise that the problem of fighting drugs cannot be looked at in isolation from social conditions. They believe that policies to combat drugs must include measures to address not just drug abuse directly but also the social exclusion, deprivation and social conditions which cause it. They recognise that there are two kinds of drug user. First, the person who usually starts young—often very young—who is the victim of social deprivation or exclusion, who becomes dependent on or involved in drugs, whose life begins to revolve around drugs and who frequently resorts to crime to feed his habit. Secondly, there is the so-called recreational drug user. He hopes to avoid dependency. He is gambling that the chemicals he is putting into his body from unsupervised, unregulated sources are not doing him long-term damage. One hopes he is not misguided in that belief.
In May 1995, the previous government introduced their White Paper called Tackling Drugs Together. It focused on the need for enforcement, treatment, prevention and education in relation to drugs and led to the setting up of the drug action teams throughout the country. At the time, the Labour Party welcomed those proposals. It believes that the problem of drugs is too important a matter on which to take political points. It wishes to build on the progress made by the previous government and to reinvigorate the fight against drugs. It wishes to ensure that the fight against drugs is a fight to prevent people using drugs; a fight against those who profit from drugs; and a fight against the economic and social conditions that encourage their use.
This Government also wish to see the fight against drugs being conducted on a comprehensive cross-departmental, cross-agency basis, with all the appropriate departments and agencies focusing together on the problem. Since this Government came to power, there has been very real co-operation between the main departments involved—the Department for Education
136
and Employment, the Department of Health, the Treasury and the Home Office, under the leadership of the President of the Council.
In addition, a comprehensive spending review has been introduced and implemented in relation to the discrete area of drugs itself. That comprehensive spending review, the terms of reference of which have been published, is designed to identify what is the current level of spending on drug-related programmes across government; to form a view about the social and economic costs to the country of drug abuse; and to establish all relevant information on which the review's proposals can subsequently be made. After that information is available, it will then consider what is the best way to target money in relation to the fight against drugs.
I move from the general to the specific and, first, the appointment of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator. I believe that Mr. Keith Hellawell and his talents are well known to this House. I felt that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield spoke with real regret at the loss of the chief constable from West Yorkshire. He has been appointed and takes office on 5th January. His deputy, Mr. Mike Trace, has also been appointed. He has already reported. Mr. Hellawell will report directly to the President of the Council. He can call on the support of the Prime Minister where appropriate. His first task will be to review the existing strategy overall and to put forward new proposals for tackling the drug problem with renewed vigour. He is expected to report with his plans in or about the spring of next year. Although he is still engaged as the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, he is presently embarked on wide and detailed consultation in preparation for the plan he proposes to put forward in the spring of next year.
I pick up the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Layton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Mr. Hellawell's role will be to provide visible leadership; to galvanise partnerships both within and outside government. The fact that he is from the police force does not mean that the policy will be skewed in the direction of enforcement. His background shows that he has a firm commitment to prevention, education and treatment measures. He will aim to build on good practice. He is keen to learn from and focus on that which actually works. We believe that his approach will be entirely and eminently practical. He will wish to focus on ministerial commitments which have already been flagged up. In particular, he will wish to ensure that there is a greater focus on young people, especially those at risk; for example, those excluded from school or in care. He will wish to investigate the links between social deprivation, unemployment and drugs.
Again, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield said, drugs cannot be dealt with in isolation. It is impossible not to reach the conclusion that there is a link between social deprivation and drug use. Regeneration projects and welfare-to-work all have their part to play in the war against drugs. He will also seek to ensure that there is effective enforcement to reduce the flow of drugs into this country to enable drug action teams to root out drug-related crime.

137
The Government have already taken a number of steps, quite apart from the appointment of the anti-drugs co-ordinator, to fight drugs. Perhaps I may mention just a few of them. First, we will reverse the plans for the reduction of the number of anti-smuggling Customs and Excise officers by 300. Customs has a very impressive record and an important part to play in the war against drug dealers. For example, there have been two trials recently concluded in Bristol where important drug dealers of a major sort were convicted and imprisoned for long periods as a result of the intensely brave and committed efforts of the Customs people.
In addition, the Customs national investigation service and the police regional crime squads have recently agreed on operational protocols to facilitate working arrangements. The Government have also funded 79 local anti-drugs projects under the £2 million drugs challenge fund in England. Those projects act in concert between, on the one hand, the Government and, on the other, private industry or the voluntary sector.
In the Crime and Disorder Bill presently before the House, the Government have introduced provision for a new drug testing and treatment order, so that those who offend because of drugs can agree at an early stage to a treatment order as part of a sentence, coupled with drug testing provisions which will permit their progress in trying to throw off drugs to be monitored. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced that a new key objective for policing will be to target drug-related crime in partnership with other agencies. Again, that will encourage the multi-agency approach. The Prison Service is currently in the process of reviewing its drugs strategy. Around 44 pilot drug treatment programmes are already under way in prisons.
Those are some of the steps that have already been taken. I hope that I have set out the basic commitment of this Government to the war against drugs and indicated the extent to which we accept the need for enforcement against the drugs barons and also for education, treatment, prevention, and, indeed, the need to seek to address the problems of social deprivation that lead to drug problems.
I shall now deal with points made by noble Lords during the course of our short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, objected to the phrase, "Drugs Czar". I agree with him that it is an inappropriate phrase. He pointed out that there has been little joy in relation to the adoption of such a czar in the United States of America. We do not intend to seek to emulate the American experience, although some lessons can be learnt from it. In particular, what the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator and his deputy will seek to do is to provide recommendations, galvanisation and leadership for a team approach to the problem of dealing with drugs.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Layton, that there should be stiff penalties on suppliers and that the war should be primarily directed to them. As far as this Government are concerned, there is no war on young people. It is against the suppliers, the dealers and the profiteers from drugs that the enforcement effort should he directed. I agree with the noble Lord that decriminalisation is not an option. Indeed, the
138
Government believe that decriminalisation would simply lead to greater drug abuse and would not achieve anything. I also agree with the noble Lord that there should be a greater emphasis on education. At present there is a substantial emphasis on the latter, but in the view of this Government that can only be increased.
The noble Lord referred to the importance of rehabilitation and described it as being at the heart of a drugs programme. Again, I agree with him. Indeed, rehabilitation is of great importance. Like everyone else, I accept that there are not enough rehabilitation places available. However, the comprehensive spending review will consider the best way to target resources in that respect. Finally, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the attack on drugs must cross the boundaries of ministries and those of agencies. That is what the Government very much hope to do.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield expressed concern about the funding and the policy for support as regards the Chief Constable he is losing. It is for Mr. Hellawell to make his recommendations and to give us his plan. The latter will coincide with the comprehensive spending review. The last time detailed costings were made as to how much was being spent on fighting drugs was in 1995, and the figure was something in excess of £500 million. It is to be hoped that more is being spent now, but the comprehensive spending review will determine how what is being spent can best be targeted. I can unfortunately offer no prospect of more money but I can offer the prospect that all of the money that is being spent will be considered and will be targeted as effectively as possible.
I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate that effective co-ordination and targeting of resources are important. I agree with the priority that he placed on drug action teams. I believe that targeting of resources and effective co-ordination constitute precisely the kind of action the chief constable can bring to bear in the fight against crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, declared an interest; namely, his involvement in the City Roads project. This project is well known and has contributed much to the guidance issued by the central drug co-ordination unit which seeks to co-ordinate within Whitehall action in relation to drugs. He, too, focused on the need for co-ordination. That was a theme in a large number of the speeches. The Government accept that need and it is in part for that reason that the UK's anti-drugs czar—I apologise, I meant to say anti-drugs co-ordinator; that was a Freudian slip—will have such an important role to play.
The noble Earl, Lord Strafford, welcomed the appointment of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator, but he referred to what he described as the inefficiencies of prohibition and raised the question of the decriminalisation of cannabis. I think I have already made clear that decriminalisation of cannabis would simply lead to the greater misuse of drugs; it is not on the agenda of this Government. I do not accept the noble Earl's argument that the Dutch experience encourages one to believe that cannabis should be decriminalised. I believe rather that the opposite is the case. I believe

139
that the open sale of cannabis in Holland may well mask the covert sale of hard drugs. The Dutch experience suggests that soft drugs cannot be disengaged from the sale of hard drugs.
As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to some extent supported the decriminalisation of some drugs. He suggested that there should be a limited supply through licensed outlets. That is not on the Government's agenda. We believe that the decriminalisation or legalisation of drugs will simply lead to their greater misuse. His view that to decriminalise drugs, or provide a legal supply through licensed outlets, will get rid of the black market in drugs is, with the greatest respect to him, misconceived and misguided.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, discussed primarily the position of precursor chemicals. The Government obviously recognise the importance of precursor chemicals in relation to the manufacture of illegal drugs. Over the past few years the precursor chemicals industry has significantly contributed in many respects to the apprehension of illegal drugs laboratories through the provision of vital information. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked me a large number of questions about the chemicals industry, none of which it would be appropriate for me to answer at this stage. I shall read Hansard carefully and write to the noble Viscount.
I very much welcome the support given by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for the appointment of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator. The noble Viscount asked whether the funding of £8.5 million will continue for the drug action teams. The answer is that it will continue in relation to them. However, when the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator has produced his plan,
140
after a comprehensive spending review, precisely how much will be given to drug action teams will have to be considered again. They will continue.
The noble Lord asked what is happening in relation to prisons. The Prison Service is currently in the process of reviewing its drugs strategy. There are around 44 pilot drug treatment programmes under way across the prison estate. They are currently being evaluated, with a report due early next year. Voluntary testing units in drug-free wings are being established across the prison estate in accordance with the Government's manifesto commitment. Mandatory drug testing, aimed at reducing the level of drug misuse in prisons, is carried out on a set percentage of prisoners every month. A review of mandatory drug testing is due to be completed early next year.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked whether the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator's remit would relate to Scotland. He will focus primarily on a drug strategy for England, although obviously he will look to see what is going on in Scotland. There may well be complementary strategies there. The noble Viscount also asked what the executive powers of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator will be. I have described what his role will be. As regards his funding, he will operate out of the central drugs co-ordination unit. He will not be the person given the whole of the budget for anti-drugs activity in the Government. His role will be to provide plans, to galvanise, to invigorate and to provide the ideas for the effort in government against drugs.
I am sure that I have not answered all the questions I have been asked. However, I have very much overshot my time and it is late in the evening, so I shall bring my remarks to a close. I hope that I have set out in general terms the Government's strategy in relation to drugs and the role of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator. Again. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Layton, for giving us the opportunity to have this short debate.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before midnight.

  Smoking: Prevention Measures
  Smoking: Prevention Measures
  School of Oriental and African Studies, Library
  School of Oriental and African Studies, Library
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  NHS Capital Projects Prioritisation
  NHS Capital Projects Prioritisation
  Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill: Code of Conduct
  Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill: Code of Conduct
  NI Capitation Formula Review Group
  NI Capitation Formula Review Group
  Palace of Westminster: Accommodation
  Palace of Westminster: Accommodation
  Electricity from Gas
  Electricity from Gas
  Biotechnological Inventions
  Biotechnological Inventions
  Single Currency: Deficit Penalties
  Single Currency: Deficit Penalties
  Scotland and Wales: Block Budgets
  Scotland and Wales: Block Budgets
  Legal Education and Conduct: Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee Report
  Legal Education and Conduct: Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee Report
  Medical Treatment: Advance Directives
  Medical Treatment: Advance Directives
  Disability Living Allowance: Life Awards
  Disability Living Allowance: Life Awards
  Prisoners' Pay
  Prisoners' Pay
  Firearms Incidents
  Firearms Incidents
  Firearms Legislation: Consolidation
  Firearms Legislation: Consolidation
  Alcohol and Young People
  Alcohol and Young People
  Strasbourg "Victim" Test
  Strasbourg "Victim" Test
  Hunting: Manifesto Commitment
  Hunting: Manifesto Commitment
  Service Personnel: Compensation Review
  Service Personnel: Compensation Review
  Laser Weapons
  Laser Weapons
  Hungary: NATO Membership
  Hungary: NATO Membership
  NATO Command Structure
  NATO Command Structure
  Argentina: Non-NATO Ally Status
  Argentina: Non-NATO Ally Status
  NATO Role in Central Asia
  NATO Role in Central Asia
  Palestinians in West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza
  Palestinians in West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza
  Mr. Ismail Besikci
  Mr. Ismail Besikci
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Social Exclusion Unit
  Social Exclusion Unit
  Zimbabwe: Land Acquisition Programme
  Zimbabwe: Land Acquisition Programme
  Water Abstraction
  Water Abstraction
  Regional Development Agencies
  Regional Development Agencies
  Railway System
  Railway System
  New Housing
  New Housing
  Alconbury Airfield
  Alconbury Airfield
  Railtrack: Maintenance and Renewal Contracts
  Railtrack: Maintenance and Renewal Contracts
  Household Projections and New Housing
  Household Projections and New Housing