Sitting of 17 December 1997

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

  Adjournment (Christmas)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Tom Cox: I am a member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe and the rapporteur of its social, health and family affairs committee, which is preparing a report on the dangers of asbestos to workers and to the environment. That is why I raise the matter on this motion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has been active in the House on the issue of asbestos: he recently secured a debate on the subject. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), has been supportive, and in June this year, Lord Howie introduced a debate on asbestos in the other place. I welcome the interest shown by Parliament in this issue since the election.
  Medical reports show the serious effects that are suffered by people who have worked with asbestos. Sadly, it causes a large number of deaths. The Construction Safety Campaign estimates that about 3,500 people die every year as a result of working with asbestos. People are deeply concerned: they have a fear of contact with asbestos when it is exposed in housing estates, schools, hospitals and offices. Those concerns are voiced in many other countries.
  The Council of Europe is the largest political assembly in Europe, with 40 member states. Although the western European members have expressed their deep concern, the newer members from eastern Europe are sadly only now learning of the dangers of working with asbestos and the effects that it has on the environment. There is clear evidence that the safeguards that we and many other countries have are not always applied in the new member states of the Council of Europe.
  The United Kingdom, especially with a Labour Government, can show by its record the leadership that should be followed by all member states of the Council Europe over this highly dangerous material. Materials containing asbestos, particularly building materials, have been imported into this country from eastern European countries. The criticism and complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone and I have is that those materials are often poorly labelled. They are often much cheaper than products that are made in this country, and there is no clear indication that they contain asbestos. The Council of Europe report calls for all materials to be properly labelled.
  250
  Those of us who want a complete ban on such material have been greatly helped by the French Government, who have imposed a complete ban on asbestos in France. Many other European countries, especially in Scandinavia, have also been very supportive. Some countries, of which Canada is one, are campaigning hard to ensure that no proper restrictions are placed on the use of asbestos. At a meeting that I attended in Strasbourg, some representatives of those countries told me that the type of asbestos now in use is no longer dangerous if properly used. That did not impress me; nor does it impress medical experts or the Health and Safety Executive.
  We seek a complete ban on any materials that contain asbestos. There are substitutes, for which there is a market, and they are not expensive to produce. Some British companies use alternatives, and I welcome their action and support. I would welcome the Government's full support for the Council of Europe recommendations. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to say that, as legislation tightens on the use of asbestos in Europe, unscrupulous companies and individuals will not be allowed to export it to third-world countries which would not be fully aware of the enormous dangers that asbestos poses to people and the environment.
  Asbestos and its uses, its removal from buildings and the protection that must be provided for people who work with it, are well known, but there are still reports of abuses. That is why many of us, in this country and in many others, have called for the material to be banned. That view is supported by many organisations, overwhelmingly by medical opinion, and by many trade unions.
  I pay tribute to my trade union, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, and also to the GMB Union. I am delighted that all unions support the action we seek. I look to the Government to strengthen legislation on action against those who put workers and communities at risk. Plainly, there are such people in this country.
  In January, we take over the presidency of the European Union. The European Parliament supports the work on asbestos that is being carried out by the Council of Europe. They are two different political organisations, but they interrelate on that work. I look to our Government and Prime Minister to place this country in the forefront in seeking action, and to lead the campaign in Europe against asbestos. A successful conclusion to that campaign could be one of the major achievements of our presidency, and it would be warmly welcomed by all those who value the health and safety of working people and our environment.
  9.43 am
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for the detailed and dedicated work that he has described. My constituents are much more sympathetic to his cause than to the cause of banning beef on the bone, about which they are deeply outraged.
  I pay tribute to many people in my constituency for their enormous effort in promoting plans to create a new community hospital in Farnham for the 21st century. For some years, there has been deep uncertainty and unhappiness about Farnham hospital's appropriate role. As in many parts of the country, in my area there has

  251
  been major investment in district general hospitals, in Guildford and Frimley. There are now magnificent state-of-the-art hospitals providing care for which people would previously have had to travel to London. However, they left a question mark over the role and nature of community hospitals. As general practitioners provide ever-rising standards of care, how should the purpose of such hospitals be identified?
  Farnham hospital used to have 150 beds. It was unrealistic to fight many of the changes because we knew that fashions in modern medicine require centres of excellence to serve large populations. A year ago, there were plans for a new hospital, but they did not come to fruition.
  After much uncertainty, and even the suggestion that it should be a bedless hospital, I am delighted to report that, following the combination of the two local health authorities, the local trust, the community health council and action teams worked together in a constructive, enlightened and productive manner to formulate proposals which mean that there may be a new 40-bed hospital at Farnham, a new health centre to incorporate local GPs, all of whom are fiercely independent but were working in totally inadequate, cramped accommodation.
  There will be a new nursing home for the elderly and mentally infirm, a facility for which there is a growing need. There will also be a large range of out-patient, day hospital and diagnostic services. Above all, a mix of rehabilitation, extended care and stroke care will be provided at the new community hospital, although that is subject to further discussions by the health authorities and those most directly involved. Such facilities are a model for constructive and open discussion.
  Farnham hospital lies between North and Mid-Hampshire health authority and West Surrey health authority, and has faced particular difficulties. Over the years, local people have been keen to support the changes at Frimley. They had to accept the loss of Cambridge military hospital at Aldershot, and it is now Farnham's turn to resolve the outstanding uncertainty. I hope that the community health council will support the proposals when they are formally published for the three-month consultation period, so that action for a clear future can be resolved.
  It is easy tospeak about health authorities, trusts and community health councils behaving adversely, furtively and incompetently—the negative stories always outweigh the good ones—but in this instance I pay warm tribute to the community health council, to Nicholas Buchanan, to Dr. Shipp at the health forum, and to the hospital action team which is chaired by the local curate. Rather than being destructive, irresponsible and scaremongering, they have been determined to secure the outcome that they most wish. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), is also to have a new 24-bed community hospital at Fleet.
  There are some outstanding issues. First, the new trust by which Farnham hospital will be managed seeks a new chairman. I hope that the merger of the trusts, which is currently the subject of consultation, will be approved, thus putting mental health services alongside community services.
  252
  In the context of the appointment of that chairman, I must voice the deep concern that has been expressed by many hon. Members over the reprehensible way in which the new Government have been handling health authority appointments. I have repeatedly asked the Secretary of State for Health for clarification, and have repeatedly raised with him the insult and offence that have been caused to people who for many years served the health service with great dedication and commitment. Sometimes they were not informed and did not know that they were not to be reappointed, until their successors telephoned them.
  Ann Galbraith, a Newcastle trust chairman, represented the health service on the citizens charter panel. She did not know that she was not to be reappointed until her successor telephoned her. That is totally unacceptable. Angela Sealey, the chairman of North and Mid Hampshire health authority, who took forward the changes in Hampshire and incorporated the services from the Cambridge military hospital, has also not been reappointed.
  Helen Gardiner, the chairman of Surrey ambulance service, came to an extremely troubled service that was suffering from a great deal of unrest and low morale, and turned it around. The service is now investing in the future, but she, too, has not been reappointed. There is deep alarm in both Frimley and Guildford that two exceptional chairmen—Alison Kinloch and Colston Herbert—may suffer from the same vengeful approach unless their colleagues raise the matter urgently.
  Mr. Ken Purchase: What a disgrace.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I believe that it is a disgrace. When I was Secretary of State for Health, I was responsible for the appointment of Helene Hayman, Margaret Jay, Baroness Dean, Julia Neuberger and Baroness Thomas, because I was determined that people of all political parties, or of none, who were committed to the service should be appointed. They should be treated courteously; no one would think it right to be dismissed without proper thanks, appreciation or courtesy.
  I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that, when making appointments in future, we rely on people of high public standing and calibre. My local trust will be difficult to manage: it contains six hospitals and is incorporating new services; and major redevelopments are in progress, such as the collaborations with GPs and social services. My anxiety is that, if we cannot treat those we appoint in a more civilised fashion, in future people of high calibre will not come forward to be involved in that vital public service.
  The second concern I wish to express is about money. Last week's White Paper on the health service did not address resources. We suppose that the fundamental review will be on the Government's decision on whether pensioners are to pay prescription charges, and whether to introduce other measures that have been threatened. The sums simply do not add up: over the past 18 years, the average real-terms increase in health service funding has been 3 per cent., but the Labour Government are looking at half that rate of increase over two years.
  The Government claim that they have put more money into the health service, but they do so by running two years together. That does not disguise the fact that,

  253
  each year, Governments put in more than was put in under the previous plan, which is business as usual; but it is not business as usual to have a mid-year cash injection. That may look good this year, but I can guarantee that the only result, next year and the year after, is that the health service will expect further injections. I fear that the Government may rue the day they made that decision. More serious is the lack of long-term resources to meet people's rising expectations, and to deliver the quality of care they should be able to expect.
  In respect of my local community trust, there is deep concern about the vindictive settlement in the rate support grant for Surrey, which has had millions of pounds wiped away. I ask the Leader of the House to use her good offices to ensure that her colleagues receive delegations, because one aspect of what is becoming an increasingly high-handed and arrogant Government is Ministers' refusal to see delegations, except apparently by video conferencing. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) chuckles, but I assure him that, when I was a junior Environment Minister, I would not turn away delegations from anywhere in the country. The same was true when I was at the Department of Health. If Members of Parliament wanted to see a Minister, they were able to do so; they were not fobbed off by being told that they had to go to local government bodies or that the meeting would have to be video conferenced.
  One of the obligations of being a Minister is to receive delegations, and I hope that the Leader of the House—especially in the context of an appalling settlement for Surrey, which is leading to extremely invidious choices having to be addressed—will ensure that delegations can see the Minister concerned and put their case.
  There are some outstanding reservations about the Farnham proposals, which may be exacerbated by the outcome of the rate support grant settlement. The whole question of the 40 beds depends on a reduction in length of stay, an increase in bed occupancy and the development of intermediate care, which, in turn, closely depends on the availability of social services support, working in conjunction with community nurses and local GPs. The doubts that have been expressed about the preliminary proposals will be developed further if no satisfaction is obtained about the rate support grant.
  Last week, the new White Paper on health was published. When one is looking to the future of the health service, one looks for
  "a health service, not just an illness service—geared to improving health and preventing disease. A service focused on the individual patient, responding to their needs, listening to the public and influenced by their choices. An innovative service, evidence-based at every level and driven forward by education and training. An efficient service, which provides value for the taxpayers' money and offers individual choice. A service with a long-term view, working for the future, conditioned by the marathon rather than the sprint. A public service with a strong ethical foundation, funded mainly from taxation, accountable to the people and providing services for all."
  Those words could easily have been found in the White Paper, but they did not appear there; nor did they appear in the White Paper I published a year ago, "A Service With Ambition", although they could have done. They are, in fact, words that I wrote two and a half years ago in speech entitled "The New NHS: Continuity and Change".
  That only goes to show that the White Paper, instead of the dire predictions that Labour Members made when in opposition, is hauling up the white flag for the health
  254
  service reforms. I am pleased that the Government endorse the purchaser-provider division. I welcome their emphasis on clinical effectiveness, but they will have to do more to invest in research and take forward the Culyer proposals if that is to carry any credibility. A telephone service staffed by nurses is a good idea, but it will not solve the problems of the health service—many GPs' out-of-hours arrangements already include such a facility. Making internet access available is a perfectly sensible, evolutionary idea, but it will not solve much, either.
  Apart from the lack of resources and the expectations that will be seen in next year's public sector pay round, the interesting aspect of the White Paper is that the Government have bounced GPs into compulsorily becoming budget holders. I regard that as an amusing irony: had the previous Government forced the pace on GPs becoming budget holders, there might have been something of an outcry.
  There is concern about how the groups of GPs will work together, as GPs tend to be individualistic. It will be important that the arrangements are not excessively bureaucratic, and that the light touch of GP fundholding, which could support innovation swiftly, is not undermined.
  I believe that the evolutionary approach being taken by the Government will fit very well with the plans under way for the future of Farnham's community hospital for the 21st century. I wish it well, and commend it to the House.
  10 am
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want first, to urge the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to conclude his investigation into the alleged perjury of Jonathan Aitken as quickly as possible; and secondly, to say a few words about the law relating to perjury.
  Perjury is a very serious offence. In 1995, 193 people in England and Wales were convicted of perjury, of whom 94 were given immediate custodial sentences. The law prescribes that seven years is the maximum prison sentence for someone convicted of perjury, although the longest term imposed since 1979 is five years. The average sentence is just under four months.
  What sort of people are convicted of perjury? There are those who lie to protect their reputations. For example, a magistrate ordered his wife to act like "a dumb blonde"— I am quoting a newspaper report—to protect his reputation after a car accident. He was sentenced to 15 months and his wife to nine months for perjury.
  Earlier this year, a doctor failed to give life-saving treatment to a man with severe diabetes. He was convicted of lying at the inquest, and was gaoled for 12 months. In a recent case, a woman lied at a murder trial, which later collapsed. She was convicted of lying on oath, and was gaoled for 30 months. Only two months ago, at Knightsbridge crown court, Eddie Ashby, the right-hand man to Terry Venables, the former England soccer coach, was branded as a blatant perjurer, and was gaoled for four months.
  If a person lies on oath in court, the penalties are very severe. It is an incontestable and irrefutable fact that the former Cabinet Minister, the former Minister for Defence Procurement—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to intervene, but it is possible that charges may be laid against the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is extremely difficult to see how he could reasonably expect a fair trial if the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) continues with the sort of allegations he is making.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The sub judice rule does not apply unless charges have been laid. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is responsible for what he is saying.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There needs to be some discretion. I agree that, strictly speaking, the sub judice rules do not apply, but, as I understand it, inquiries are afoot in the Metropolitan police. That raises the possibility that criminal charges are being contemplated. It would be very unfortunate if any trial were to be invalidated by anything that the hon. Member for Pendle might think fit to say under the cloak of privilege.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On many, many occasions over the years, Madam Speaker has advised us that hon. Members have to take responsibility for what they say in this Chamber. However, I ask you to imagine how it would seem to the outside world if an hon. Member used parliamentary privilege to pass a criminal conviction on someone what has not even been charged. Frankly, it does not do much for the reputation of this House or—not that this matters in the slightest—the reputation of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) have said, does it mean that the Tory party and Tory Members will make no reference to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), either today or any other day?
  My recollection is that the Tories have, times without number, previously attacked Labour supporters who have been charged. Indeed, they did so last night over the hon. Member for Govan. The Tories want to be able to attack Labour Members, but, when a Labour Member attacks an ex-Tory Member, it is a different kettle of fish. Let us have fair play in this place.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not given the Chair the opportunity to ensure that fairness applies. We are governed by the sub judice rules of this House, and they have not been breached.
  Mr. Prentice: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish or intend to behave irresponsibly.
  The Jonathan Aitken libel action collapsed in June. It is now coming up to Christmas. I asked how much time had been spent by the Commissioner investigating the case, and was told last month that it was the equivalent of 39 man days. I do not want the investigation to drag on indefinitely. There is irrefutable proof in court transcripts that Jonathan Aitken lied under oath.
  256
  Jonathan Aitken was a Cabinet Minister. At one time, he was Minister for Defence Procurement. He was one of only two Members of Parliament in recent times to resign from the Privy Council. He brought the libel action against The Guardian and Granada Television. The "World in Action" documentary, "Jonathan of Arabia", detailed his history of arms dealing, and the fact that he was sponging off very rich Arabs.
  The story is set out comprehensively in a book entitled, "The Liar", written by three journalists from The Guardian,Luke Harding, David Leigh and David Pallister. What upsets me about the whole case is that, when Jonathan Aitken went to court, he said that he was defending his reputation. He said that he would use
  "the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play … to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism."
  To do that, Jonathan Aitken resigned from the Cabinet and as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He persuaded the then Prime Minister and many of his Conservative colleagues that he was a truthful individual. Against that background, had he won his libel action, he would have been awarded exemplary damages. I hate to think how much The Guardian and Granada Television would have had to pay out—probably hundreds of thousands of pounds.
  In essence, the story is very simple. I will not rehearse it, other than to cite a few salient facts. When Jonathan Aitken was Minister for Defence Procurement, he stayed at the Ritz hotel in Paris, where he met Sayed Ayas, the business manager of Prince Mohammed, the son of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. The Guardian asked the simple question: "What was he doing there?" Correspondence started, innocently enough, between Peter Preston of The Guardian and Jonathan Aitken.
  The contradictions in that correspondence began to show. For reasons that are known only to Jonathan Aitken, he alleged that the bill to settle the account at the Ritz hotel was paid by his wife Lolicia and not by Said Ayas. However, she was in Switzerland. In the libel action in June, irrefutable evidence was produced. The British Airways counterfoils for the journey of Lolicia and Jonathan Aitken's daughter Victoria from the United Kingdom to Switzerland proved that there was no possibility whatever of his wife dashing across to Paris to pay the bill.
  That is the story. Jonathan Aitken lied on oath, like the magistrate who was sent to prison for 15 months, the friend of Terry Venables who was sent to prison for four months, and all the others that I have mentioned. They are all in it together. They are liars.
  I take a simple view about these things. I am at one with Lord Denning, who said all those years ago:
  "Be ye never so high, the law is above you."
  I hope that the police are going to pass the papers to the Crown Prosecution Service just as soon as may be, so that the Aitken affair can finally be settled.
  10.10 am
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The noble Lord Denning is a good and compassionate man. He is also one of the greatest jurists that this country

  257
  has produced. He would not have approved of what we have heard from the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Jonathan Aitken is an old friend of mine. We all know that he has brought disrepute on himself and we deeply regret that fact, but we should not use the privilege of Parliament to stamp on the grave of a man who was once a distinguished Member. I deeply regret what I have heard.
  I turn to another, although not wholly unrelated, matter: the way in which we treat Members of Parliament against whom allegations of serious misconduct have been made. I am glad that the Leader of the House is in her place, because I should like her to consider my suggestions.
  The points that I want to raise relate to the procedures of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. What I say is against the background of the findings against Mr. Neil Hamilton, the former Member for Tatton, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). The procedures that we have in place do not sufficiently protect hon. Members against whom serious allegations have been made.
  We need to be clear that a finding of serious misconduct against an hon. Member has the most serious consequences for that Member. Mr. Neil Hamilton lost his seat. His reputation has been wholly destroyed, and I imagine that he will find it extremely difficult to secure worthwhile employment in this country. In the case of the hon. Member for West Derby, the consequences were less grave, but his reputation has been seriously tarnished.
  Those consequences were predictable and foreseeable. Because of that, it is important that the procedures that we put in place are sufficient to give hon. Members proper protection. Indeed, they should comply with the rules of natural justice. May I suggest in broad terms the nature of the procedures that we should put in place?
  I think that it is clear that we should have a two-stage process: an inquiry with a right of appeal. As to the inquiry, I am content that we should proceed by way of a commissioner. That is a matter for the House, and I do not object to that, although I say in parenthesis that it would be a good thing if he were to sit with more than one other—preferably, it would be a panel of three. However, the rules of natural justice are not being complied with. May I summarise what the rules should be?
  It is important that every hon. Member should know the nature of the charge that has been made against him or her. It is important, too, that the Member should have ample opportunity to defend himself or herself. Hon. Members should be represented by counsel, if that is their wish. The evidence against them should be given on oath. The evidence should be tested by cross-examination on behalf of the hon. Member—by counsel, for example—and the hon. Member should have the opportunity, through counsel, to make representations to the commissioner at the initial stage.
  Those basic elements should exist, and, with the greatest respect to the House, to the Select Committee and to the commissioner, they did not exist in the case of Neil Hamilton.
  I also believe that there should be a proper right of appeal, and that it should involve a rehearing, if necessary, of evidence. That did not happen in the case of Neil Hamilton; nor did it happen in the case of the hon. Member for West Derby. The latter asked to be heard by the Select Committee, I believe twice, and it denied him
  258
  that request. In the case of Neil Hamilton, evidence was not given on oath before the Select Committee. Indeed, in effect, there was no evidence. Therefore, in respect of both men, there was no appeal.
  Standing back, I can understand why hon. Members on both sides of the House might say to me, "You are putting an enormous infrastructure in place. Is it worth it?" I make two observations on that.
  First, I ask for no more than the protection that is afforded to a person who appears before a magistrates court charged with a speeding offence. Every element that I have described applies to a person who is tried before a magistrates court for speeding. Evidence is given on oath, he knows the charges, there is the chance to cross-examine, he makes representations by counsel, and he can go to the Crown court for a complete rehearing. We are denying hon. Members the privileges, rights and protections that we give to the simplest citizen who is charged with the slightest offence.
  We need to tackle the problem, because the injustice is great. I should like us fundamentally to change the procedures. I have already discussed briefly the principles that should apply at the initial stage—that is, in front of the commissioner. The House can work through the detail, and there will doubtless be various other models, but the principles are clear. However, I have come to the conclusion that the Select Committee cannot be the appellant body. There are several reasons for that.
  Once we accept that there needs to be a rehearing, including the taking of evidence, we have to ask ourselves: has the Committee the time to do it? The answer is probably no. Almost every member of the Select Committee will know the person who is appealing to that body.
  Moreover, most of us have been members of Select Committees, and we all bring to them our own prejudices and biases; we should not, but we do. Furthermore, in a place such as this, there are pressures of a private type—private chats in the Lobby, and the pressures that we all understand. Those should not play any part in what is a judicial process, yet they do. Therefore, I do not believe that the Select Committee can provide the sort of judicial solution—the judicial appeal—that hon. Members are entitled to expect. So what do we do?
  Again, I do not want to say that I have a clear final view, but I have two suggestions. We can go down one of two roads. We can set up a specific committee that reports to the Select Committee and is composed of judicial figures—a panel of three or five persons who hold or have held high judicial office. In almost every case, the Select Committee would accept that report. Alternatively, it would have to give some jolly good reasons for not doing so. That committee of judicial figures would hear the evidence, listen to the submissions and constitute an appeal.
  The alternative is to set up an ad hoc committee of senior Members of this House, and perhaps of another place, chaired by a former or current Law Lord, which would perform the same function and report to the House. There might be other models—I do not wish to be dogmatic-but I am certain that we must create a structure that accords with the principles of natural justice and gives hon. Members the feeling that they can with confidence entrust their good name and reputation to the procedures that we have established.

  259
  Let us be clear about one thing: Members are destroyed by what happens at the moment, and we should not allow it to continue. I therefore ask the House to give urgent consideration to the my suggestions.
  10.19 am
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) spoke about the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who is sitting next to me, is a member. Over the years, there have been various Committees with various titles doing the same job—unsatisfactorily, in my view.
  To some extent, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the nature of Select Committees. By and large, they can and usually do reflect the political set-up in the House. When the House is evenly divided, as was almost the case in the last Parliament, many votes were six to five or five to four. Even in the most recent case, notwithstanding the great difference in the political make-up of the House, there were still divisions along what could be construed as party political lines.
  I have never warmed to the idea of Select Committees. I do not accept the notion that we can all get together and be one happy family. When the chips are down and we have to deal with an important issue, hon. Members can bet their bottom dollar that the vote will separate along party lines. Frankly, matters affecting a Member's livelihood should be dealt with by an outside body.
  The right hon. and learned Member suggested a committee of the great and the good. There was such a committee not too long ago—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) used to sit on it, but he left because it would not meet in public. It is now time that these committees' functions were passed to an outside body, because in-house investigations—whether by Parliament, the stock exchange or the police—all end in disrepute. The sooner we take our investigations outside the House, the better.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). The fact is that my hon. Friend did not appear before the Committee and was not questioned by anyone. Someone said that that was a mistake, but that is what happened.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for West Derby made two requests to the Chairman to appear before the Committee to state his case, but those requests were denied.
  Mr. Skinner: I heard someone say that that could have been a mistake, but my hon. Friend did not get a fair crack of the whip. I was present when he made his personal statement, and was astonished to learn that he did not have the opportunity to appear before the Committee. The sooner such matters are dealt with elsewhere, the better.
  I want to speak about the plight of the coal industry and unemployment in areas where the pits have closed. We had a mini-debate a few weeks ago, but only a few hon. Members were able to speak. In the past few weeks,
  260
  the Prime Minister and one or two others members of the Cabinet have tried to cobble together some kind of energy policy, bit by bit, but that is not satisfactory.
  The industry is now very small compared to what it used to be. There are now a little more than 20 pits, producing under 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That pales into insignificance when compared with what we produced when I worked down the mines, when production was more than 200 million tonnes a year. The industry is now very small, but we must try to save what is left.
  First, I must emphasise again that gas reserves are finite, and very small in relation to coal reserves. It is crazy to use gas in power stations when it could be saved for domestic use. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to pass on the message that the control and use of gas should be part of any comprehensive energy policy.
  Secondly, we have to deal with opencast mining. I heard Richard Budge complaining, whining and whingeing here the other week that he needed to cut the production of deep-mined coal because he could not sell enough to power stations. There was an element of truth in that, but he has the solution in his own hands. Of the 48 million or 49 million tonnes produced last year, 32 million came from deep mines, and about 16 million tonnes came from opencast mining. Richard Budge is responsible for that opencast production. If he wants to save the pits and the miners' jobs, all he has to do is stop opencasting, provide the necessary coal to the power stations, and thereby save the pits.
  Once we have decided to use gas reserves in such a way that they will last for many years, the second message for my right hon. Friend to pass on is that we must change the planning controls—mineral planning guidance 3—in order to stop opencast developments in the old coalfield areas and at the same time preserve the jobs at the remaining 23 pits.
  Thirdly, there has been much talk about beef and the fact that people on the continent are not doing the right thing by Britain. When I hear European experts talking about British beef, it gets up my nose. At the same time, the French are sending their electricity here, but we should not allow that to happen. Now is the time to act—just tell them. A comprehensive energy policy means curtailing the amount of electricity that is imported into this country from French nuclear power stations.
  Fourthly, we are still giving massive subsidies to nuclear power stations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that.
  Fifthly, we are importing coal. We have the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe—not in the world, because some slave labour economies such as Colombia and one or two others are cheaper. Polish, German, Spanish and Australian coal receives huge subsidies and some of it is coming on to our markets, affecting our jobs. Another element of any comprehensive energy policy would be the restriction of such imports.
  I know that that will get up the nose of some people in the Common Market, but that does not worry me at all. I do not believe that the Common Market is going to be of any significant help to us. The halcyon days of the Common Market are over—yes, there was growth in the immediate post-war period, but there would have been growth, anyway.

  261
  Some people give the impression that, in order to live decently, we need to be subject to the Common Market's bidding, but that is nonsense. Let us put our cards on the table: if we want a comprehensive energy policy to save jobs in the coalfields, we are going to have to offend some of our so-called friends in the Common Market.
  Having got that off my chest, I should like now, just briefly, to deal with the problems in the coalfield caused by the pit closures. I do not want to spend too much time attacking the previous Deputy Prime Minister and the rest of them, but those problems are a fact. There is no longer a single pit in my constituency, and there are absolutely none in Derbyshire, principally because of what happened in the past 18 years.
  Unemployment in some pit villages—I ain't kidding—is over 30 per cent. In a few cases, it is over 40 per cent. It is true that not all those people are on unemployment benefit—as ex-miners, many of them get money from the Department of Energy under the agreements made when they were made redundant—but those unemployment rates are the truth of the matter.
  The task force that has been set up, at my bidding, by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will have to think of the matter not as one of spreading the jam thinly over a massive area of Britain but as one of picking several little projects—target areas—in parts of the coalfields where unemployment is so high, and concentrating on producing a plan to reduce unemployment in the areas that have been hardest hit.
  By and large, every pit was connected to rail. So we had 1,500 men going down a hole in the ground, and a railway line. The coal went down the railway line, and that was the sum total of the infrastructure. Now we have vast open spaces.
  At Shirebrook, in my area, there are thousands of cleared acres that used to be mines, but now, apart from someone providing some work in the old pithead baths, there is only one chocolate factory. Why? Because there are no proper roads from pit villages. Anyone setting up a business in those areas, in many cases, would have to trundle through colliery estates to get to a motorway six or seven miles away. So there will have to be some infrastructure development to develop new forms of employment in areas of high unemployment.
  If we can get that task force working in the manner that I have described—tightly targeted on areas where unemployment is so high—we can set an example, and repeat that example in other parts of Britain.
  We should try something new to find employment for the disabled, too. Remploy factories are spread across Britain. A few years ago, when they closed one in the constituency next to mine, people came from all parts of Britain to march. Some people—50-odd of them—were in wheelchairs. Marchers came from Northern Ireland, from Newcastle and from all parts of Britain that have Remploy factories. It was a sight to see, because those people—many of whom were seriously disabled—were fighting for their jobs.
  Such factories are a good idea, and we should be exploiting them. There is all this talk about welfare to work, so let us look at the matter from the work angle. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to pass on a message to Cabinet members, when they have a few minutes: if they want to get disabled people into work—if they really mean it, if welfare to work is real—let us have a lot more Remploy factories, across Britain.
  262
  Unemployment will be a problem for the rest of this Parliament. I hear all the talk about big ideas, but, if we are to ensure that we resolve many of the problems at the end of five years, we will have to get people back into work. One of the chief accomplishments of our 1945 Government—when we had a massive majority of 196—was that we managed to build. We built a health service, a welfare state and houses for every local authority. We also rebuilt Britain, almost from the ashes.
  How did we do it? We certainly did not have any money, because the country was skint after the second world war. It was done, first, through political will, and, secondly, by the fact that everyone had a job. Everyone was pulling their weight and paying taxes and national insurance. Today, we still have an army—if the figures were counted correctly—of well over 3 million unemployed. Employment is the key to solving most of the problems we face today.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend has taken down all those points in fine detail, so that they can be passed to the respective Cabinet members, and we can deal with the issues of developing an energy policy and getting rid of mass unemployment.
  10.34 am
  Mr. Mark Oaten: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to speak in this debate, and also for the clarification that you gave me when I was sworn in, that I would not be required to make a second maiden speech—sparing me the embarrassment of having to praise my predecessor, who was me.
  The points that I should like to make to the Leader of the House relate specifically to the experiences that I have had in fighting two elections this year, and in facing a court case and election petitions. The issues may seem trivial, but, after I have expressed my concerns, anyone who has stood in an election will realise that there are some very serious problems with the current election system.
  We must ensure that we preserve the bedrock of our democracy. To do so, voters will have to be sure that our way of running elections is fair, sensible and practical. The public must have confidence that we have such a system. Unfortunately, this year's experience for me and the voters of Winchester suggests that we do not. I ask the Leader of the House to assure me that she will recommend to those in the relevant Departments that they should conduct a fundamental examination of some of the issues that I will raise.
  The first issue is that of rogue candidates. I am pleased that the Government seem already to be taking the issue very seriously. Hon. Members from both sides of the House—even Madam Speaker herself—have faced that problem, which was particularly acute in Winchester. In the general election, we had the interference of a candidate who stood as a "Liberal Democrat—Top choice for Parliament". He secured 640 votes, whereas I won by only two votes. All hon. Members will realise that that candidate's interference caused mayhem, and that the subsequent Winchester by-election can be attributed largely to him.
  I know that Ministers are examining the matter of the labelling of individual candidates. It is essential that the process moves speedily—so that such candidates cannot stand in a misleading form in the European elections, and certainly not in the next general election.

  263
  The specific point that I should like to raise, however, deals with an initial inability to object to the nomination of such candidates. In Winchester, when that "Liberal Democrat—Top choice for Parliament" candidate submitted his nomination, we were told that we had only two hours to object to it. That meant that—literally in two hours—my wife, agents and I had to dash round trying to track down the 10 individuals who had nominated him. Imagine my horror when I discovered, after we tracked down five of them, that my posters were up in the gardens of three of their homes, expressing their desire to vote for me.
  We went into those people's houses, spoke to them and asked, "Why have you nominated someone else for this election?" They expressed their concern, and an immediate desire to undo their nomination of entirely the wrong person. We were able to persuade them to visit the returning officer, and marched them in to do so. With an hour left to object, those people were prepared to swear affidavits in front of the returning officer, saying that they had been completely tricked into signing the wrong candidate's nomination paper; that they wished to undo that; and that they wished to support the candidate whose posters were up in their gardens.
  I was horrified to realise that the returning officer had absolutely no power to refuse the nomination, and that those people had to live with nominating a candidate whom they did not wish to nominate. I should like that situation to be examined, because returning officers have to have greater powers to query nomination papers when individuals say clearly that they were tricked into signing them.
  I also believe that we have to examine the time available to object to questionable nominations. It was very difficult to dash round Winchester, trying to track down the nominating individuals. Two hours is simply not sufficient to complete the process properly. In addition, 24 hours is not enough time for the courts to listen to the various arguments relating to the description of candidates. The matter needs urgent attention.
  My concerns then moved on to the way in which the election in Winchester was run—the count itself. There certainly seemed to be grave difficulties in dealing with two elections on one day. There were problems for the polling staff in each of the polling stations. The count was the longest in history, with the result not finally declared until 6 pm the following Friday. That was stressful for the candidates, the clerks and everyone involved.
  The reasons were connected with the problem of having two elections on the same day and individuals putting ballot papers into several boxes, which at times were overflowing. Frankly, the system could not cope with the number of people who wanted to vote on two extremely long ballot forms at the same time. If we are to continue to have dual elections, we must re-examine how they are managed and run.
  The position went from bad to worse. Within half an hour of my being declared the winner, there were rumours that an election petition would be brought against me. I wish to draw to the attention of the Leader of the House my concerns about the way in which election petitions operate. I shall spare the House the intricacies of the system. If "Mastermind" were still running, it would be
  264
  my specialist subject. However, the House needs to know that the way in which election petitions operate is extremely unfair to Members and petitioners. The time scale involved needs examining.
  It seems to be fundamentally wrong that I was able to be sworn in, take my seat, make a maiden speech and act as the constituency Member with the uncertainty of an election petition hanging over me for almost six months. It does not seem proper than any hon. Member should have to be put in that position.
  I understand that other countries deal with such disputes much more effectively. In the French general election, a similar petition was brought on similar grounds, but the matter was resolved within 48 hours—before anyone had taken the seat. The process here takes a wholly inappropriate length of time, and the uncertainty hanging over me and the individual who took that action against me was unacceptable.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he should not have taken his seat until the matter had been resolved?
  Mr. Oaten: If there had been a quicker process by which election petitions could be dealt with, and it was clear to hon. Members who had petitions against them that the matter would be resolved within a week or even 48 hours, I certainly would not have taken my seat. When I found out that the petition was pending against me, I had doubts about taking my seat, and even considered resigning to try to bring the matter to a head more quickly. It may interest the House to know that an hon. Member cannot resign until 21 days after a general election—as I discovered when I looked into that option.
  The law needs clarification in respect of the way in which election petitions operate. At the time, there were major concerns among lawyers on both sides who were desperately trying to interpret the law. I urge the Leader of the House to consider the points that I have raised.
  One aspect of the petition against me was the basis on which it was brought. It revolved around the fact that the ballot papers had not been franked, and that, if they had been franked, it might have changed the result.
  Why do we frank ballot papers in the first place? I understood that it was to ensure that no fraud or corruption could take place. However, it was assumed in the petition drawn up against me and the subsequent court cases that, although papers had not been franked, fraud and corruption had not taken place, and they were allowed to be included and to change the result.
  We need to review how we judge unfranked papers and the system of perforation. Why do we do it? Is it a foolproof system? Hon. Members may be amused or alarmed to hear that, after all the publicity about the franking of election papers, during the re-run in Winchester one of the perforation stamping machines broke down, and the presiding officer in the village hall had to raid the kitchen for some forks which were then used to make the official mark on the ballot papers. It is a farce, and it needs urgent review.
  We also need to look at the way in which we use the electoral roll in elections. The re-run in Winchester took place some 18 months after people had originally completed their forms to be included on the electoral roll.

  265
  As a result, a large number of people in the constituency felt disfranchised. They could not vote in the election, although some had lived in the area for almost two years.
  People who had completed new forms for inclusion on the roll in October were extremely confused by the fact that they had no right to vote in the by-election in November. Surely it cannot be beyond technology to have a rolling register that would be more up to date. After all, we collect the council tax pretty quickly. Individuals certainly do not have to wait two years before having to pay. Why cannot our electoral roll be updated along the same lines? It would seem a simple thing to do, and it would help to reduce the number of people who, feeling disfranchised, then try to vote illegally.
  Another cause of disfranchisement is the time scale for applications of postal and proxy votes. People often complain about the short notice given for applying for postal votes—often about a week after an election is called. That does not give people enough time to organise postal votes. Again, I call on the Leader of the House to look at the current deadlines for organising postal and proxy votes.
  My final concern is personation at polling stations. Hon. Members may be aware that, in Winchester, there were two proven cases of personation, although I believe that there were many more. There were probably personations in every constituency. Only when the majority is just two votes do such matters become critical and come to light. The implications were that individuals went to cast votes when they had no legal entitlement to do so.
  I am concerned that polling clerks have no powers to refuse individuals the right to vote. In Winchester, a polling clerk recognised someone who requested a ballot paper in someone else's name. However, that polling clerk had no power to prevent that individual from voting.
  It leads to the ridiculous situation where, for example, I could walk into the Prime Minister's constituency, say that I was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and vote as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield if he had not already done so. It is my understanding that the presiding officer or clerk would have no power to prevent me from doing that, if I continued to insist that I was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and wanted to vote. I urge the Leader of the House to look at that aspect of electoral law.
  In conclusion, it is now time to look at the fundamental matters of rogue candidates; the power to challenge nominations; whether we should include perforations on ballot papers, and, if we do, their ability to change their results; the possibility of having a rolling electoral roll; the timing and speeding up of election petitions; the working practices of joint elections; and the problem of personation. The Government need to review all those issues.
  I am grateful to the people of Winchester that the story had a happy ending for me. Nevertheless, I remain committed to the principle that we need to look at the entire election process. My personal experience suggests that it is not as robust and healthy as it needs to be for the future of our democracy.
  10.47 am
  Mr. George Stevenson: After the speech by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I should like to change the subject
  266
  altogether. My concern is the compensation regulations that apply to individuals, home owners and businesses affected by major infrastructure schemes—particularly major road schemes.
  I raise the issue at this historic moment because nearing completion through the heart of my constituency is one of the most expensive, and certainly one of the most complicated, urban motorway schemes in the country, which was initiated by the previous Government with the best intentions.
  As a result, I embarked, like the hon. Member for Winchester—although circumstances were different—on an extremely rapid learning curve. Given that the scheme goes through a highly congested urban area, many hundreds of businesses and properties were affected. My constituents who were affected very quickly realised that the regulations are outdated and anomalous, and that they leave those concerned with a deep sense of injustice.
  Why are the regulations outdated? In the main, the regulations that cover compensation and other relevant matters concerning road schemes were established during the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s. As far as I can gather, the most recent such regulations were made in 1973. So review of regulations that directly affect individuals is long overdue—if for no other reason than the fact that the gap between the regulations being made and today is more than 20 years. Circumstances have changed considerably over that time.
  The fact that the regulations are outdated is not the most important point that I want to make in this regard. Why are the regulations anomalous? I shall give one or two examples from the experiences of my constituents over the past three and a half years.
  The road scheme to which I have referred is coming to a conclusion, but the first phase of it began almost four years ago. We are not talking about amending a road junction or some relatively minor scheme that may take a few weeks or a few months. We are talking about a scheme that was decided by the Government and which affects the lives of individuals and businesses over at least four years. Of course, when the road is finished, the contractors will pick up the mess and take their tools and plans away, and that will be the end of it as far as they are concerned. It is certainly not the end of it for those who have been affected.
  If a business or a home owner is directly affected by the scheme, the authorities have a duty to submit a compulsory purchase order. That in itself is a complicated process—although in my experience, it can be relatively simple. It is when one comes to consider either compulsory or discretionary purchase, which is available to the authorities, that one begins to see the problems that individuals and particularly businesses experience. For example, under the regulations, there is no provision for any compensation for loss of business, even if the business is directly or indirectly affected by such a road scheme. A number of examples illustrate that point.
  Imagine that a family—mother, father and grandparents beforehand—have been in business for generations when along come the Government and say, "We wish to build a road through this area, and it will affect your business directly. We have provision for compulsory purchase of your property and, subject to certain procedures, that may work out reasonably successfully. You may want to wind up the business, but you could be relocated, which is a difficult process."

  267
  There is no provision whatever for loss of business. It does not matter whether compulsory or discretionary purchase orders are used: there is no right under the regulations to business or trade, even though a business may have been trading for generations. That is extremely serious, and certainly an injustice with which the House ought to be concerned.
  Many businesses in my constituency have had to employ professional people to act on their behalf, which is right and proper, although, when they look into possible compensation, they are told bluntly and starkly that it does not matter what effect the road scheme has had, because there is no provision in compensation regulations for loss of business. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, will take particular note of that, and ensure that the relevant Ministers are made aware of it.
  What happens if one is a householder whose house is not directly in the line of the proposed road? If it is within 100 m of the centre of the proposed road, one may apply for what is called discretionary blight. But my goodness, one has to jump through some very important hoops before one gets anywhere near receiving compensation under that provision. I shall give the House just two examples to underline that.
  If one applies for discretionary blight, one has to satisfy what are called the McCarthy rules. If we think back to the early 1950s, we could draw some perverse comparisons. I will not detain the House with details of how the McCarthy rules came to be. I shall simply refer to two aspects of them.
  The first is the principle of prior knowledge. What does that mean? If someone bought a property in the prior knowledge that the road was to be built, they would have no right to compensation. What do we mean by prior knowledge? In the case of my constituency, it meant from the day that the Department of Transport drew a red pencil line on the map. So, if someone bought a property within 100 m of that line after the public inquiry, and so on, they would have no right to compensation under discretionary blight provisions, because they had prior knowledge.
  What is not available at that time—nor can it be—is information on the array of side road orders, amendments to plans, closures of roads during construction, and so on. People sometimes have to wait years before details of the scheme become available.
  In the case of the road in my constituency, the line was put on the map in 1986, but it was not until early 1990 that details became available. During that time, people may have bought properties. They will not receive compensation because they had prior knowledge—although they had no prior knowledge whatever of the road closures and the direct effect on their property. Therefore, they receive no compensation.
  I recognise that we have to have rules and regulations to govern the important issue of compensation. However, it is unacceptable that a line can be drawn on a map and, years later—in this case, five or six years later—details of the road and the effect it will have on the side roads are still not available. People whose homes are affected receive no compensation, because they are deemed to have prior knowledge. They had some prior knowledge, but they did not have the detailed prior knowledge that would have enabled them to make a proper judgment.
  268
  Even people who are able to show that they meet the McCarthy rules on discretionary blight face the problem of market value. The district valuer in Stoke-on-Trent has often told me that it is his job to determine market value having no regard for the fact that a road is to be built. With the best will in the world, the system does not work like that, because, the moment that a road scheme is identified—even only in general terms—the value of the neighbouring properties goes down. It does not matter how well intentioned the district valuer is, because he cannot manufacture an artificial market value, and he would be wrong to do so.
  The reality is that people who claim discretionary blight—like scores of my constituents—go through the hoops set up by the McCarthy rules; the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions accepts the blight notice and the need to pay compensation, but, when the district valuer sets the market valuation, people are appalled that the value of the property that they have lived in for years is reduced by half. I have personal experience of that happening to my constituents.
  The district valuer says in answer to representations that he has set the current market value, and he can do no other. That is a serious anomaly, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take notice of those stark examples of how outdated the regulations are. They leave people—who, through no fault of their own, have their properties and businesses jeopardised by major infrastructure schemes—with a real sense of injustice. An urgent and detailed examination of the working of the regulations is long overdue. We should modernise them, and remove the chronic injustices they cause.
  11.3 am
  Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to make several brief points, but, before doing so I shall first touch on the speech of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), to whose remarks Opposition Members listened carefully. He has a right to be pleased by his election victory. No doubt the Liberal council in Winchester will put in order some of the difficulties that he articulated. My election in Southend, West was less than satisfactory in certain respects. The campaign started with the Liberal candidate sending me a postcard saying that the Liberals did not want any part in a Punch and Judy show. However, for the four weeks of the campaign, we had a big Punch and Judy show from them.
  My result was declared at about 6 am in the midst of a farcical situation. Everyone was very tired because they had been separating the county ballot papers from the general election ballot papers. I was asked if I would allow my vote to be reduced by 120 so that everyone could go home. I said that I was being asked to behave like a gentleman and we all shook hands, but one of the other parties made a fuss and wanted to go through the ballot papers. I could have been difficult and asked for a further count—I probably would have got even more votes. I understand that the hon. Member for Winchester feels hard done by, but he is not alone in experiencing difficulties at counts.
  The first matter that I wish to raise is the Kyoto conference. I am very pro-American, but I am a little sick of being lectured from across the Atlantic. The conference was farcical. The European Union commitment was to

  269
  reduce emissions by 8 per cent. on the 1990 level by 2010. It is crazy that the Americans, the most powerful nation in the world, will not agree to that target. The underdeveloped countries, which are in the majority, also have not agreed any targets. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned energy policy, but the situation becomes even more farcical when we realise that the Government are adopting a higher target than the European Union has agreed. Yesterday, I visited the Dunton emissions plant for the celebration of its 40th anniversary, and I know that the Minister also hoped to be present. At that meeting, the chairman of Ford worldwide expressed his concern about the issue of emissions, and we should listen carefully to what he had to say about the consequences for the United Kingdom.
  My second point is about vitamin B6. I knew very little about the subject until constituents started to write to me, but some 3 million people use that product and it gives comfort to any number of sufferers, although I shall not dwell on that point. The way that the issue has been handled since July is extraordinary. Unfortunately, we read most Government announcements in the newspapers these days. I am sure that the Minister will say that he will not take any lectures from the Conservative party—although we have a new Government and new Labour is walking on water so they will not wish to refer to what happened in the past. I understand that six hon. Members have made representations to the relevant Minister. Has there has been any movement on vitamin B6, because several of my constituents are upset about it?
  My third point concerns the Palace theatre in Westcliff. There is a legitimate debate about the funding of the arts and not all my constituents would agree that the arts should take priority over health and education. However, given that it is generally accepted that a certain proportion of the national cake goes to the arts, my constituents want a fair share of the money from the Eastern area arts board. The present situation is unfair. At the moment, the Palace theatre in Westcliff—a magnificent theatre—gets £45,000; Watford gets £204,500; Colchester gets £230,000; and Ipswich gets £322,750. I recently met the chief executive and other representatives of the board and I told them that the share for the Palace theatre was ridiculous. Southend council is the second biggest net contributor to the board, but it gets a poor allocation of resources. It was clear that the chief executive was softening me up so that next year we would get nothing. That is not satisfactory. The Minister for Arts knows how strongly I feel on this issue, and I intend to take every opportunity to make sure that the wonderful theatre in Westcliff receives a fair share of the moneys available.
  The next matter to which I wish to refer is Cyprus. Together with other hon. Members, I had the opportunity this year to visit Cyprus, where I first visited Famagusta. We are broadly speaking in agreement in the House that the situation in Cyprus is a tragedy. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference that we were into new territory, and that he and the Prime Minister took Cyprus very seriously and would ensure that something was done.
  The meeting between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash was unsatisfactory. President Clerides's view was that the Greek Cypriots were committed to a just and long-lasting solution in a bizonal, bicommunal federation accepted by both sides in 1977 and 1979 in high-level agreements, while the solution preserves the
  270
  integrity of Cyprus as one sovereign and one international personality. To achieve a just and long-lasting solution, the Greek Cypriots believe that the security aspects should be addressed and that a satisfactory solution to the problem of the displaced should be found, while human rights and basic freedoms are safeguarded in accordance with the acquis communautaire and other international instruments of human rights.
  During my two visits, I saw that there was a great fear among the Greek Cypriots about the intentions of the Turkish Government. It is so easy to forget about the situation in Cyprus. The UK is one of the three guarantors and, as a Christmas present, the House should unite in an effort to ensure that Cyprus is united.
  The final point I wish to raise is the very serious matter of suicide. A huge number of people in this country commit suicide. Every day of the week, one will read in the newspapers that someone has committed suicide. Many of us who travel on the tube find that it is disrupted and we all curse and blind, until we find that someone has thrown himself on the track. The same is true of British Rail. We can think of the recent suicides of children who have been bullied at school. So many people under different circumstances commit suicide.
  In my time in this House, Jocelyn Cadbury—a former Member for Birmingham, Northfield—and then John Heddle have committed suicide. Two of the Members who have taken part in today's debate-the hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—were present when we had an all-night sitting on gun law. Because the hon. Member for Bolsover legitimately used the procedures of this House, we stayed in our places rather than constantly dividing. I was next to John Heddle during that all-night sitting and I felt that I got to know him far better than I had done before. I was horrified when he committed suicide a few days later. We have also had the recent, tragic case of Gordon McMaster.
  Last year's figures showed that we had the lowest number of suicides this century, but many people in our constituencies are so disturbed and upset that they may be considering suicide. I represent the 31st out of 659 constituencies in terms of the number of constituents who are senior citizens. Many will be spending Christmas on their own, and I simply make a plea. When we enter the millennium, rather than 3,500 people in this country committing suicide each year—with the tragedy that that brings to our lives—it would be a mark of this country's value and civilisation if there were a drastic reduction in the number of suicides. In the milk of human kindness, I hope that all hon. Members—I know that they will—will ensure that all their constituents get help and support not only over Christmas, but in the years that lie ahead.
  11.14 am
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: First, I apologise for the fact that I was not in the Chamber for the earlier speeches and for the fact that I am unable to stay for the rest of the debate, because I am serving on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill Committee, to which I must return.
  Owing to the pressure of numbers contributing to the debate on the report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, neither of those who dissented from the

  271
  Committee's report was able to be heard. Therefore, I want to take this opportunity to bring to the House my concerns about the way in which self-regulation is operating—or, as I would contend, failing to operate—in this important area. It is an important area because if we cannot regulate ourselves in a way that commands confidence, both in the House and among the public at large, we certainly cannot aspire to regulate others.
  I believe that the report into the investigation of Neil Hamilton was a travesty—a travesty of natural justice, and the result of a deplorable shambles. It is urgent that we put together proper procedures in the House so we never have that sort of a shambles again. There was general agreement among Members of all parties that evening during the debate that the procedures were inadequate.
  First, let mesay that I do not criticise the thoroughness with which Sir Gordon Downey carried out his investigation; it would be quite wrong to do so. The report involved the detailed amassing of highly complex evidence, and reports that there was a falling out between Sir Gordon Downey and the Committee are very much exaggerated. I pay tribute to the report that he produced. Nor am I necessarily convinced that Mr. Hamilton was innocent of the main charge—taking cash in brown envelopes for questions from Mohammed Al Fayed. My disquiet over the report has nothing to do with any view that Mr. Hamilton might be innocent. It is straightfor-wardly that I do not believe I can make a judgment as to whether he was innocent or guilty on the basis of the procedures that were adopted.
  It is disturbing that the House, which should set an example of justice and fair dealing, was presented with a report against which Mr. Hamilton—or anybody else in such a situation; this is not special pleading for Mr. Hamilton—had no appeal. It is a basic tenet of British justice that there can be an appeal against a guilty verdict. We assume the verdict was guilty because it was indicative of the shambles which occurred that no two members of the Committee were able to agree on what the report was telling the House.
  The Chairman said that Sir Gordon's findings stood, which meant that the verdict was guilty; but the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) told the House that there was no clear verdict, so it was not proven, which was also my understanding of our conclusion. That is why we removed one set of words, saying that we endorsed the findings, and substituted another, saying that we could find no practical way of adding to or subtracting from them. The House was entitled to a clear statement of what we had found, rather than several confused versions from different members of the Committee.
  Throughout our proceeding, we were bedevilled by the fact that there were no clear, agreed procedures. I had never before sat on a Committee in which we made up our procedures as we went along, but that is exactly what happened. We could not agree on what our remit was or what our procedures should be. We ended by reducing justice to the decision of a single inquisitor, against which there was no effective appeal.
  It was farcical that, when Mr. Hamilton appeared before us and talked at us—I cannot think of any other way of expressing it—for nearly two and a half hours,
  272
  we were not allowed to ask any questions. If we thought that he had contradicted himself or that something was unclear, we could not ask about it; we had to sit there in silence and absorb the onslaught—that is what it was—for two and a half hours. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. At the end, I was none the wiser. I had heard a great deal that had raised an awful lot of questions in my mind, but, because I could not ask questions, I was neither wiser nor better informed.
  We could not examine the main witnesses against Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Al Fayed was not called before the Committee, and we could not examine those who said that they had been involved in the dispatch of the money, so we had no basis on which to assess a report that had been challenged. That was our real problem, because there were no serious challenges to the facts in all the other reports before us; there were pleas in mitigation, writings to the Committee to apologise and drawings of our attention to other matters, but there was no real challenge to facts. On the occasion when there was an extremely serious challenge to facts we did not have the procedures to deal with it.
  We examined Sir Gordon Downey's huge and extremely thorough report and we knew that it would take a very long time, involve a great deal of complexity, and demand resources that we possibly did not have, to re-examine the questions from scratch. The answer to that was not to shrug our shoulders and have done with it, but to come back to the House and say that we were stuck and needed a clear remit and guidance on how we should proceed.
  We have to decide whether the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is an appellate body. Should it hear appeals against the Commissioner's findings? If not, who is to hear such appeals; or are we seriously suggesting that we should create in the House a situation, unique in this country, in which a finding can blight someone's career prospects, and even preclude membership of the House, but no appeal is possible? Surely that must be unacceptable.
  We have to decide what appeal there should be. Should it be heard by the Committee or by some other body? Should practising lawyers be involved? What should we do? Is the Committee simply a sentencing and administrative body, or is it an investigative body that determines guilt and innocence? Those questions, incredibly, have not been sorted out. We carried out investigations—if that is the right word—into the conduct of Members of Parliament, without an answer to the basic question: what is the purpose of the Committee?
  The purpose of the Committee determines very much what its composition should be. I regret the fact that it has been downgraded in composition. A Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, sitting in judgment on Members of Parliament, and occasionally quite senior ones, should itself be a senior Committee. I regret the fact that the Leader of the House does not chair it. The Committee's predecessor was chaired by the then Leader of the House, and back in the mists of time it was chaired by the Prime Minister. That gave the Committee real gravitas, which I believe is now lacking.
  I do not want to criticise new Members, as those who serve on the Committee are extremely diligent and intelligent, and spend a lot of time examining the evidence, but they lack one huge dimension: experience.

  273
  Experience counts in such investigations, as it helps one to understand what a Member of Parliament could or could not be expected to know. One needs to have served in the House before one can reach such judgments. The composition of the Committee is all wrong.
  We need to ask ourselves whether legal representation should be allowed. In highly complex investigations of the sort that went on in the Hamilton case, we should consider seriously whether we should allow cross-examination of witnesses. It is worth pointing out that in this case Mr. Hamilton was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against him, even in front of Sir Gordon Downey, never mind in front of the Committee. That seems to me to be another affront to justice, and even to natural justice.
  I do not say that there are easy answers. I am not standing here sanctimoniously saying that we should have had it all sorted out, although we should have had a lot more sorted out than we did; but the solution that the Committee should have arrived at was to say honestly to the House that, within our current remit, against procedures of which we were not even certain, we really needed clearer instructions before we could proceed. As it is, we have left a man—who may be guilty; I do not presume innocence—with no clear verdict and no right of appeal. That should bring us deep shame.
  It is urgently necessary that the House address itself to what it expects the Committee to do, what composition it should have, and how we are to resolve the situation. It will be fine as long as we carry on having simple cases, but the next time that we get one of the complexity of the Hamilton case, we will be back in exactly the same situation if we have not sorted out our procedures.
  I resigned from the Committee because I could not go on wading against a sea of uncertain procedures, with no clear remit, making things up as we went along and, in the end, having to subscribe to a report that, I believe, brought shame on us, not because we had not made honest efforts but because we had not been able to sort out the mess. It ill behoves any Select Committee to return a shambles to the House.
  Of course I understand the convention by which both Government and Opposition accept reports from Select Committees, especially when they concern standards and privileges and the regulation of our own conduct; but on this occasion I believe that they should not have accepted the report: it should have been sent back to the Committee for reconsideration. It was accepted, however, and the damage is done; whether justly or unjustly, we will never know, because there is no appeal. We must get this sorted out for the future. If we cannot regulate ourselves we have absolutely no right to aspire to regulate anybody else.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If everyone who wishes to catch my eye is to succeed in doing so, brevity is essential. I call Mr. Andrew Love.
  11.28 am
  Mr. Andrew Love: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not informing you earlier that I wanted to contribute to this debate.
  After what we might call the wide-ranging contribution from the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I am sorry that I did not bring along a few more of my
  274
  constituency issues; but I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment as I echo and support what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said.
  I, too, have a major road scheme in my constituency. It is an extension to the north circular road which cuts in two a small shopping centre. I was approached by some of the traders in that shopping centre and I investigated the situation. I discovered that traders have no right in law to passing trade. It does not matter if they have had regular customers for years and can prove it; they have no right in law. In any scheme of that nature, where car-borne customers are cut off, traders have no recourse to compensation.
  I want to reinforce and support the idea that this issue should be examined. Road schemes, especially in urban areas, by their very nature have an impact on the local community and local traders. It is incumbent on us to look closely at what we can do to mitigate the effects while the scheme is being undertaken.
  This morning's debate gives me an opportunity to raise the issue of the future of the building societies movement. In the light of earlier contributions, perhaps I should declare an interest—it is not and does not have to be in the Register of Members' Interests—in that I am the chairman of the all-party building societies group in the House.
  The thrust of my remarks is that building societies are under threat and that much of the strength of the financial services sector in this country will be undermined if they disappear. Some people will express concern that I should view their future in such stark terms because, after all, the Nationwide successfully fought off an attempt to undermine its mutual status and the Government recently raised the threshold required in any ballot to demutualise, recognising the situation. Both are true and I welcome them.
  My concern relates to the failure of the Building Societies Act 1997—it was passed under the previous Government—to provide any safeguard for societies against the activities of carpetbaggers or the impact that that is having on building societies and whether, as a result, their mutuality will be perceived as a hindrance to their future success. Before considering that, I shall talk about the value that mutual organisations bring to the financial services sector.
  The consumer benefits from access to the services and products provided by mutual organisations. In other words, building societies offer choice to the consumer and they are popular. Although the remaining societies have only about 25 per cent. of the mortgage market, over the past three months they have lent more to their customers than all the banks combined. Survey after survey confirms that building societies have come top in customer service and friendliness. They provide diversity in their different structures and different objectives. For example, mutuals are able to take a longer-term perspective as they are not driven by the need continually boost to their share prices or to maximise dividends to shareholders.
  Many societies are regionally or even locally based which brings them closer to their customers. Many play a significant role in their local communities. I am sure that hon. Members up and down the country would echo that. Building societies provide stability in the market—not for them the false attractions of property speculation or

  275
  secondary banking. As a result, no savings have been lost in building societies this century. They are truly prudential organisations.
  Most importantly, building societies provide competition to the banks and other institutions in the financial services sector. That is because mutual organisations do not have to pay dividends to external shareholders. As a result, building societies have a margin advantage that allows them to offer cheaper mortgages, or savings accounts which, on average, pay more. Most societies have decided to combine the two. That was most graphically illustrated by the announcement yesterday that the Nationwide was pledged not to raise its main mortgage rate in response to last month's base rate increase. That has opened up a record 0.6 per cent. gap with its main demutualised rivals. The Nationwide has also reaffirmed its pledge to maintain, and even to increase, its savings rate. That will maintain the significant margin advantage that currently exists between the mutual and non-mutual sectors.
  In a recent survey, the Consumers Association compared a range of core products—savings accounts, tax exempt special savings accounts, mortgages and overdrafts—and found that consumers would have been nearly £1,600 better off over five years with a building society than with a bank. Without that competitive restraint in the market, it is likely that the banks would widen the margins between their mortgage and savings rates. That has already been shown in research carried out by the Consumers Association.
  The building societies sector has been undergoing rapid change in the past few years and that has culminated in the conversion of five of the largest societies this year. However, that still leaves 70 societies with assets in excess of £130 billion. The recent windfall gains to members have created a climate that threatens the very mutuality of those remaining societies.
  In that context, I again congratulate the Nationwide on the magnificent campaign that it fought earlier this year. A group of five so-called "members for conversion" stood for election solely on a ticket of demutualisation, in the teeth of opposition from the board, the staff and, as it turned out, the members of the society. At the height of that campaign about 25,000 accounts were being opened daily, swamping the society and making it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out its ordinary business for its main customers. As a result—this is according to the society's management—the level of service it provided fell below an acceptable level.
  The Nationwide came through that with flying colours and, fortunately, its members voted in favour of their long-term interests rather than for short-term gain. I do not conclude that that spells the end of the carpetbaggers. I should like to think that that would be so, but I find it difficult. There is growing evidence that others are coming forward to take up the challenge to demutualise.
  Although the next annual general meeting of the Nationwide does not take place until April, it is already clear from public statements that at least nine candidates, some who have stood previously and some new candidates, are committed to "members for conversion" and will be standing for election, regardless of the overwhelming result earlier this year.
  276
  It is clear that societies, which have to survive in a cut-throat, competitive market, simply cannot continue to be diverted from their core business activities to defend their mutual status. If the attacks continue, even if unsuccessful, societies are likely to be faced with the unpalatable choice of continuing to defend their position against increasing odds or accepting that it would be better for the business and for their other stakeholders to convert on their own terms. That would reduce the number of societies below the level that would make that sector sustainable and would, inevitably, lead to its elimination from the financial services market.
  I shall now turn to an argument put most cogently by Professor David Llewellyn of Loughborough university. He said that there is a systemic interest in maintaining mutuality, not because it is somehow an inherently superior form of ownership, but because there is a need for a mixed ownership structure in the financial services sector. If that is accepted, mutuality becomes a public policy issue, and Government, and especially Parliament, must take an interest in ensuring that the consumer does not lose out from continued conversions. How can that be done?
  The Minister has already shown the way by raising the threshold for conversion to 50 per cent. It must be right that fundamental decisions about the future of building societies should require at least that level of support before demutualisation can happen. After all, converted societies can be taken over only if 75 per cent. of shareholders vote to confirm such action.
  For large mutual societies, the number of people required to nominate candidates for election should be raised above the current maximum of 50. As recent events have shown, that maximum can easily be exploited by a small band of eccentric or dissident individuals. Let us compare what happens in building societies with what happens in general elections, on which the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) commented earlier. A Member of the House must be nominated by 10 electors in an average constituency of 67,000. That is one for every 6,700. The Nationwide, the largest mutual society, has 7 million members; the Bradford and Bingley, the second largest, 2.2 million. For the Nationwide, one nomination per 140,000 members is needed; for the Bradford and Bingley, one per 44,000. Nominations should be based on a percentage of the total membership, with an absolute maximum written into the legislation.
  Membership of societies could be restricted to people with an interest in its activities, not abused by those interested only in asset-stripping the society for their own benefit. To gain ownership rights in a society, applicants should be members for a minimum period of, say, one, two or three years. That would return societies to their original ideal of requiring new customers to save with them before gaining membership or its benefits.
  Is it reasonable to ask societies to go through the disruption and uncertainty inherent in the campaigns being mounted by members for conversion and other like-minded groups? They can stand every year with impunity and little financial outlay, yet the cost to societies of mounting a reasonable defence, and from the disruption of normal business, is enormous. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the framework of regulation should provide stability and ensure that societies cannot

  277
  be held to ransom by small and unrepresentative groups with no commitment to the objectives of the mutual organisations of which they are members.
  Building societies have been with us for more than 200 years and have more than 100 years of expertise in the savings and mortgage markets. If they and their expertise are not to be undermined, action is necessary to deal with the difficulties and disruption that they face.
  11.43 am
  Mr. Tim Loughton: In the interests of brevity, I shall not repeat the globetrotting account of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I shall limit myself to the problems of West Sussex, which includes my constituency, and consider the Government's effect on it. There is a growing feeling that we are being victimised to the benefit of new Labour's friends in the northern metropolitan boroughs and, in particular, those with distinctly old Labour profligate spending habits.
  First, I shall discuss last week's shocking announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions that West Sussex is to be singled out. An additional 12,800 homes are to be built in our county by 2011, on top of the 37,900 already agreed in the county structure plan. It is ironic that while the Government were talking up their credentials on greenhouse gases, the Secretary of State was busy putting another nail in the coffin of the West Sussex green belt, a most un-environmentally friendly gesture from an apparently environmentally friendly Deputy Prime Minister.
  Earlier this year, an independent panel concluded that there was no case for increasing the housing allocation figures for West Sussex. It was an independent panel, and a fair and square decision. The Secretary of State was represented on the panel and made no objection then. Now, in a fit of pique, he has decided to kick over the table, take home his toys and object. The inquiry recognised that West Sussex had few brown-field sites left on which to allocate additional housing. It recognised that large parts of the county are taken up by the downs, which are dominated by areas of outstanding natural beauty. It recognised that West Sussex lacked the infrastructure, especially roads, to deal with the extra pressures that a further 30,000 people would bring as a result of the extra allocation of houses, let alone the effects of extra traffic on the CO2 emissions with which the Kyoto conference was so taken up.
  The inquiry, with its independent judgment, also recognised the impact that the additional houses would have on the delicate balance between jobs and homes, especially in my densely populated patch of West Sussex on the coastal strip, where unemployment is already well above average. We are certainly not enjoying the image of the cosy south that is often portrayed. The extra homes allocation is the equivalent of adding a new Basingstoke to our county. West Sussex is in danger of becoming a massive semi-rural suburbia circling the downs.
  The decision met widespread opposition. The county council and the three leaders of the political parties on it were united in their opposition and have
  called for a
  278
  judicial review, which I support. The decision is opposed by the seven Conservative Members in West Sussex. It was also opposed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, whose press release stated:
  "The draft West Sussex Structure Plan had been agreed by a careful analysis of housing and environmental needs in the county. It stood as a beacon of a more common sense approach to planning new housing development and its housebuilding levels, significantly below those set out in Government planning guidance, received independent official support … The new Government has made an appalling start to meeting the challenge of providing new homes in ways that renew our towns instead of concreting the countryside. This decision is both undemocratic and environmentally damaging. What is the point of giving local authorities flexibility in planning future housebuilding levels if politicians simply reinstate their own inflexible figures?"
  The Sussex Wildlife Trust stated:
  "This makes a mockery of the enormous amount of work done to establish a sustainable level of housing development in West Sussex."
  More houses
  "would cause ongoing environmental damage … This 'Environmental capacity' argument was accepted by the independent inspector at the Examination in Public … The news is a severe blow against local democracy. The EIP process appears to have been a waste of time and resources. The month of eloquent discussion and the winning of the argument count for nothing against an ill-judged government direction."
  Those are environmentally independent commentators on this shambolic decision. Only the House-Builders Federation has said anything supportive about the Secretary of State's decision. That speaks for itself.
  We are being forced to have the extra houses despite the fact that the basis of the house building allocation figures is being called into question. Dubious, trend-based household projections are too inflexible. We want figures based on housing need, not projected demand. If some Labour councillors in the north of England got their act together on renting out empty council houses that lie idle for months at a time, and used the brown-field sites in their cities better, we would not have these problems foisted upon us in the south of England.
  The decision is an attack on local democracy, particularly against Conservative West Sussex county council. A plank of the policy on which it was elected was protecting the strategic green gaps, which are all too few, especially along the coastal strip.
  It is difficult to see how the people of West Sussex have derived any benefit from the Government. Instead, we appear to be the major victims of a series of often dogmatic and ill-thought-out measures which disadvantage my constituents more than most. What have the Government got against Sussex? It started at the beginning of the Session with the abolition of the assisted places scheme. We have many fine schools in Sussex which have benefited many pupils from less well-off backgrounds, but that opportunity will now be lost.
  The Budget in July included the abolition of tax relief for pensioner medical insurance policies. As I have mentioned time and again, Worthing has the highest proportion of pensioners in the country. It is no surprise, therefore, to learn that we have the highest proportion of pensioners with such medical insurance policies. We also have one of worst problems in the country in terms of waiting lists for treatment at our local hospitals. Given that more than 100,000 of those policies have already not been renewed, the impact on my part of West Sussex will be dramatic.

  279
  Recently, we have had the latest complete horlicks on beef, which affects many Sussex farmer—I will leave it to my colleagues to go into detail about that. Most recently, the proposals for the individual savings account are shambolic and will work particularly to the detriment of the older, prudent savers nearing retirement, of whom there are many in Sussex and in my constituency. Those proposals threaten to be a breach of trust and harsh retrospective tax legislation. They are seriously flawed and I hope that the Government will take full account of the many voices of opposition expressed in what I hope will be a genuine consultation process.
  Finally, let us consider the council finance allocations, which were announced just the other day. The extra £16 million allocated to West Sussex will not even cover the inflation element. It will not cover the extra pupil spend in West Sussex and the extra costs that will be associated with the development of special educational needs as proposed in the Green Paper. That allocation will not cover the £3.4 million hole that has been knocked in the West Sussex pension scheme because of the pension tax announced in the July Budget. That allocation is equivalent to another backdoor tax, which is likely to be imposed to the detriment of my constituents because council tax bills are set to increase by between 10 and 12 per cent. Again, that is the result of standard spending assessment changes that favour Labour's northern friends.
  Many other things have not helped West Sussex. You will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for believing that the Government have something Sussexist about them. My constituents are increasingly of the belief that they are to be the unwitting victims of new Labour's designs on the retired and other disabled, the environment-loving, prudent-saving, beef-eating and beef-producing, council-tax-paying, pension-fund-owning and interest-rate-sensitive folk of middle England, who just happen to live in one of the most beautiful corners of this kingdom.
  11.52 am
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I shall be brief because I know that the House also wants to hear the hon. Member for Belfast South (Rev. Martin Smyth), should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I had intended to raise two matters in some detail. The first relates to the concerns expressed by former prisoners of war about the continuing failure of the Government to meet their justifiable request that their salary deductions, taken from them during the war, should be restored to them. I hope to return to that matter on another occasion.
  On occasions such as this there is a certain element of ritual. We are apparently arguing seriously that we do not want the House of Commons to rise for Christmas until it has debated particular subjects. Normally, if hon. Members thought that there was any risk that they might not get away in time for Christmas, they would not be seen in the Chamber for this debate. There is, however, a subject that I think should be debated, and time should be made available for it on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
  I am sure that I am not alone when I say that I would gladly give up the opportunity to spend more time with my family to come to the House to debate something that desperately needs to be discussed—the order implementing the beef on the bone ban.
  280
  That order automatically came into effect last night, but we have not even debated it. Its consequences for the rural community, and that far beyond it, could scarcely be more extreme. Last week, I went to my local market at Newton Abbott; at the weekend, I spoke to farmers; and I was present at a National Farmers Union rally that was held in the Grand Committee Room 48 hours ago. On each occasion, I met people who are concerned not only that their income might go down, but that their entire way of life will be devastated. Those people are looking into the abyss, and see that they might lose not just their business, farms, homes and the rest, but the way of life that they and their fathers before them have always followed. And why? It is due, latterly, to the implementation of a ban that was not even necessary. It would have been quite possible to give the public a warning so that they could make up their minds, but the Government chose not to do that. There may be reasons—ones which I might find incomprehensible—why the Government, when faced with the option to issue an warning, decided to impose a ban. Surely such a ban, whose impact is so crucial and critical, is something which we should have the opportunity to debate.
  That ban is bad law, because, as one butcher asked recently, "How am I supposed to tell the precise age of an oxtail?" It is not good enough for the Government simply to say," It matters not. We have carried out our parliamentary duty. We have laid the order and we do not need to debate it." That is not the right and proper way to proceed.
  I was unable to be present at a rally that took place in Exeter, which had been organised by the NFU, because I was committed to speak at a rally in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) attended, as did my wife, on my part, and she reported back to me. She told me that she had seen people, some of whom we have known all our lives, who were in a state of distress the like of which I have never witnessed. The new ban is the straw that will break the camel's back.
  I find it simply incredible that we, on our salaries, can go off soon and enjoy Christmas with our families, when we know that all we have to face is the judgment of our electorate every five years—with the exception of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who has had to face it more often than some of us. Those poor farmers are facing a judgment, the results of which could be terminal, and that should be debated in the House.
  11.55 am
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution. I understand the argument about the restrictions on meat and I know that the concerns expressed would be echoed by many in Northern Ireland.
  I should like to consider an old problem, the workings of the Child Support Agency. We have already heard today how different legislation passed by the House is not always thought out carefully and that establishing the CSA is one such example. We all agreed that something needed to be done, but, as a result, problems have arisen with the administration of it.
  A constituent of mine provided for the family, but then things began to go wrong. Unfortunately, it would appear that the CSA is prepared to listen more to the mother than to the father. It is investigating that man without investigating the mother's statements.

  281
  Such problems are coupled with others that I have discovered. For example, when the Benefits Agency says that a child is receiving benefit, the CSA has no alternative but to accept that that individual is a child. That happened in one case despite the fact that the CSA was advised on more than two occasions that the child had left school, although the mother claimed that he was still attending. When documentary evidence was presented to the CSA, it did not follow it through. I have written constantly to the CSA office in Belfast about that case, and it has finally agreed to re-examine it. Surely greater care should be taken in providing child benefit to children who are past the age of normal school education and are not in further education.
  I appreciatedthe contribution from the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), because it is necessary for the House to tackle the problem of personation at elections. It was thought that it occurred only in Northern Ireland, but we were all aware that it has taken place in England, Scotland and Wales. It is nearly time for the House to provide foolproof identity documentation, rather than leaving it to the presiding officer to make a challenge that cannot be followed through there and then.
  As for bad legislation, we had devastating riots in Londonderry last week. I understand that business leaders and the great and the good in the Churches now say that those who organise parades or demonstrations should be responsible for the damage. I ask the House not to go down that road, because it would be a charter for the rioter.
  If there are those who are prepared to riot and destroy property, the organisers of that activity and those perpetrating it should be held responsible in law, rather than those who have a legitimate right to parade, protest or demonstrate. If we went down the other road and allowed a rioters' charter, we would be failing our people in our democratic structures.
  11.59 am
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I begin by paying a very real tribute to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for their admirably succinct speeches, in which they both made powerful points.
  In my winding-up speech, I shall try to refer to all the hon. Members who have spoken, but I must first point out that it was a couple of nights ago that we had the formal vote on whether we should rise for the recess on Monday. I rather regret the change in the procedures of the House that prevents a vote at the end of this debate, because it would have been good to register a protest.
  I object to the fact that we are rising on Monday, not because I mind being here but because it has come about as a result of the Government's inept management of their timetable. We were brought back from the long recess much later than we normally are and now we are bringing all Members—and, more important, all the members of staff who serve us so well and so selflessly—back on Monday for just one day.
  I warned the Leader of the House that I would raise the point, so I am not being discourteous. It is a pity that we should go to all that trouble and expense merely because the Government could not get their legislative act together more effectively. I tabled a question to the right hon. Lady
  282
  asking what estimate she had made of the costs that will be incurred as a result of the decision that the House should sit for a single day. I also asked whether the figure included an estimate for travel expenses for Members.
  I was asked to delete the second part of my question, because a colleague had already asked it. I readily agreed. However, the answer to my question referred only to that second part, saying that it was not possible to provide a realistic estimate of travel costs for one day's travel to and from Westminster. That is nonsense. We need to know what the total cost will be.
  I say this in a gentle spirit, because I do not want to spoil the season of good will, but I hope that the Government will get their act together better next year and that we shall move towards a more strictly defined parliamentary year. That would benefit all Members and those who serve us.
  The problem is not that Members wish to be on holiday early; many of us will have to abandon the Christmas visits that we like to make to places such as residential homes, prisons and hospitals. This year, many of us will not be able to do what we would like to do in that regard.
  The debate began with a plea, in a powerful speech by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), for the banning of asbestos in all its forms and ended with a plea for the abandonment of the ban on beef on the bone. I hope that the comments of the hon. Member for Tooting, based on much investigation and experience and on his work in the Council of Europe, which is greatly appreciated, will be taken to heart by his colleagues on the Front Bench.
  As for beef, I hope that, during the season of Christmas when, I trust, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will have a happy time with his family and some pleasant meals, he will reflect on the enormous damage that he has done by his precipitate action and panic measure.
  Every Member who decides to smoke sees a warning on the cigarette packet when he or she buys one. We know that there is a risk. I recently tabled a question relating to the 120,000 people who died from smoking-related illness in 1995. The risk associated with beef on the bone announced in the House a fortnight ago is infinitesimal. We are not even sure there is a risk—yet, as a letter to one of the papers said yesterday, we have reached the ultimate nanny state in which our meat is to be cut up for us. That is nonsense and the damage that is being inflicted by not allowing people to choose is out of all proportion to the risk. A great industry is being put in severe jeopardy.
  My first reaction on hearing the announcement of the ban was to ring my wife and instruct her to ring our butcher and get as much beef on the bone into our deep freeze as possible. I am glad that she did, because I am now told that those of us who have beef on the bone in the deep freeze are allowed to exercise our judgment as to whether we eat it. Incidentally, I wish that the Prime Minister had presented me with the 15 lb piece of beef that was delivered to Downing street the other day instead of putting it in the dustbin.
  Beef is an important issue. Many other important issues have been touched upon. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) talked about appointments to various health service trusts. I have never believed that people should be appointed to public bodies on the basis of their political beliefs. It is a great

  283
  pity that, over the years, we have departed from the system under which a Conservative Government appointed Alf Robens to run the National Coal Board and a Labour Government sent Sir Christopher Soames as ambassador to Paris. In each case, the Prime Minister of the day chose the man best suited to the job.
  My right hon. Friend cited a number of people she appointed to health service trusts when she was Secretary of State. She mentioned Baroness Jay, Baroness Hayman and several others. It is a great pity, to put it no higher, that the Government now appear not only to have embarked on a purge of those who were previously appointed, but to be so cavalier in their attitude to those people's public service that they learn about their replacement through telephone calls from their successors. That is not acceptable.
  I have a great belief in the ideal of public service. Public service should be encouraged wherever it is found. I do not mind what the political affiliation of a man or woman appointed to a public body is so long as that person is dedicated to public service and is willing to serve. Purging the health service of those who have given a great deal will do it a great disservice.
  I shall say little about the speech made by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). I am sorry he is not in his place now. I do not like to be unkind, especially at this time of year, but in my notes I wrote that here we had a prig being sanctimonious. In his absence, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I hope that if he ever finds himself in any trouble, personal or any other sort, he is treated with a little more charity than he displayed this morning.
  I do not know all the rights and wrongs of the Aitken affair. Jonathan Aitken was and is a friend of mine, although I find some of his apparent actions incomprehensible. To presume guilt and condemn someone on the Floor of the House before we know whether charges are to be preferred is an abuse of the privileges of the House.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) explained to me that he would not be in his place for the winding-up speeches because he is attending an important meeting of his party. He made a splendid speech, as he always does on such occasions, in which he made a plea for a co-ordinated energy policy. He made no apology for plugging coal and I hope that when the Minister replies he will give some encouragement to the pilot scheme for which the hon. Gentleman argued with such understandable passion.
  I shall referlater to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but first I want to comment on the interesting speech made by the new, or rather the re-elected, hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). It would be churlish not to congratulate him warmly on his decisive victory, and I do so without reservation.
  The hon. Gentleman brought to the attention of the House in a most appropriate manner the shortcomings of our petition system. As he said to me privately after his speech, he would have been more than happy not to have taken his seat had we had a system for investigating petitions quickly. I think that we should have such a system.
  284
  The hon. Gentleman also touched on the problem of personation, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, South. Most of us prefer not to recognise that problem, but we should recognise it and the points that he made should be taken to heart. I thank him for raising the issue and I hope that action will be taken.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), who is a fellow Staffordshire Member, referred to the problem of compensation for people who face the loss of home or business because of road building and other public works schemes. A number of motorways have been proposed for or put through my constituency, so I echo his remarks. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take note of the hon. Gentleman's points.
  I cannot begin to touch on all the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who took us from Kyoto to suicide via vitamin B6, Cyprus and the Palace theatre, Westcliff. If he can produce such a veritable tour de force in 10 minutes, he should be at the Palace theatre, Westcliff. I hope that he will repair there during the pantomime season.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made an important speech, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. They were both concerned about natural justice to Members of the House who find themselves in difficulties and the need for a proper appellate system. As I said when I wound up the debate on the so-called Hamilton affair, I believe that we should examine these matters most carefully.
  It is no criticism of any of the individuals involved, still less of Sir Gordon Downey, to say that what has happened recently leaves a lot to be desired. Although we have not yet come to any absolute conclusions, the comments of my right hon. Friend about an appellate body have much to commend them. My personal view—I do not speak for my party—is that a group of three or four distinguished former hon. Members from the various parties, who know the ways of the House, presided over by a former Speaker, might be a good appellate body. We must come up with something, because we should not leave matters as untidily as they have been left following the Hamilton affair.
  All I would say to Mr. Hamilton is what I said in the House a few weeks ago. I hope that he and all those with whom he comes into contact will recognise that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, for all its imperfections and for all the imperfections of its report, made it plain that it would not have recommended expulsion from the House. I hope that he will derive some comfort from that, although I find some of his actions difficult to understand.
  The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) spoke with authority about building societies and the concept of mutuality. It behoves us all, especially Conservative Members, because we have done so much to further the property-owning democracy, to realise that our efforts would not have met such success were it not for the building society movement. There is a continuing place for that movement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) talked about the impact of potential housing development in West Sussex. Anyone who has the privilege of representing a rural area and who

  285
  values the importance of the green belt knows how crucial it is that insensitive development does not swallow up the finite resources of our beautiful countryside and fine farmland. My hon. Friend has the great good fortune of having a beautiful constituency and I well understand why he feels its vulnerability and feels obliged to speak as he did this morning. He has my full support.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to the Child Support Agency. There is not a Member in the House, of any party, who has not had some unfortunate examples of the agency's operations. Hon. Members in the previous Parliament agreed that the Child Support Agency should be established. When the previous Government introduced proposals, they found support from the then Opposition. We all have some responsibility, especially to ensure that the system continues to be improved. Improvements have been made in recent months and I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends who were in government before May for setting many of those improvements in train, but the agency is still far from perfect.
  I have one minute before the Minister speaks. I understand why the Leader of the House is not present: she has explained to me that she has Privy Council duties. I should like to take this final opportunity to wish the Minister, hon. Members who are present and those who are not an extremely happy Christmas. Let us hope that we return in good spirits and in good humour in the new year.
  12.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I apologise for missing two speeches. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, the Leader of the House has unfortunately to attend to Privy Council business. I am afraid that I am an inadequate deputy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) raised the issue of asbestos. I have to state an interest, as I am the honorary secretary of the Liverpool and district asbestos victim support group. I hold that post because, seven years ago, I watched my brother John die from mesothelioma, which is a terrible, debilitating disease. Anyone who has seen someone suffer from the effects of ingesting asbestos must have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments. The Government are determined to deal energetically and decisively with all aspects of the asbestos problem. Ministers are currently considering advice from the Health and Safety Commission on a mechanism and timetable for a domestic ban on the import, supply and use of asbestos products. The Government plan to make an announcement early in the new year.
  I was more than a little amazed to hear the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) refer to the politicisation of appointments to health trusts. I remind her that, a few years ago, I tabled about 800 questions in a short space of time to find out who sat on health trusts and various other quangos. For a very long time, that was a secret garden for hon. Members and for the public.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that health trusts will meet in the open. Appointments to trusts will be on merit, which has purportedly always been the case, but was allegedly not the case under the previous Government. I am happy to
  286
  tell the right hon. Lady that we have issued a consultation paper on all quangos, including health trusts. To the best of my knowledge, no one has been excluded from a health trust because of the political bias of sponsoring Ministers or anyone else.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Lord Nolan commended the mechanisms used for health service appointments. He ruled out allegations of political bias and commended the further improvements that had been introduced. That being so, will the Minister take up the many examples that I can feed to him of people who have been treated in a discourteous, not to say offensive, manner?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: In the spirit of openness that characterises the new Government, I am perfectly willing to look into any suggestions of abuse or discourtesy. That is the difference between us and the previous Government.
  My hon. Friendthe Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) caused some controversy. A senior detective from the specialist operations department has been appointed to investigate the allegation to which he referred. The matter is being pursued as expeditiously as possible. When the investigation is complete, a report will be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. That is all that needs to be said about that matter now.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who has apologised for not being here for the winding-up speeches, were concerned about the procedures that surround what has become known as the Neil Hamilton affair. In its report on Mr. Hamilton, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges said that it would review its procedure in the light of some of the issues that the Hamilton inquiry raised. In his speech, the Chairman of that Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that the Committee would report to the House when it had completed its review. It is appropriate to await the outcome of that review, at which time the House can decide what, if anything, needs to be done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) habitually raises the issue of the coal industry of whose interests he has been a long-time and heroic defender. He also spoke about Remploy. I am sorry that he has left the Chamber because I should have liked to tell him that I, too, have a great interest in Remploy. It has a large factory in my constituency and I am aware of its work.
  The Government's objective is to ensure secure, diverse energy supplies at competitive prices and we certainly want coal to play its part in meeting that objective. The Government cannot intervene directly in negotiations between coal companies and generators, but we have made plain to all involved our concern about the future of the United Kingdom's coal industry.
  We have taken some key actions to create a level playing field so that coal can compete fairly. They include challenging German and Spanish coal subsidies so that we may maximise markets for UK coal, and removing by way of the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill the advantage that nuclear energy and imported nuclear energy from France enjoy by exemption from that levy. We are asking the gas regulator to examine the resale provisions of early

  287
  taper-pay gas contracts to establish whether they distort the market against coal, and we are examining many other issues.
  In the context of Remploy, the Government are making available an extra £195 million from the windfall levy to pay for a range of measures that will help disabled people and those with long-standing illnesses to get work and training.
  The hon. Member for Winchester twice over (Mr. Oaten) raised some important issues. Before entering Parliament, I was a professional, or perhaps unprofessional, organiser for the Labour party. I was an election agent and I understand perfectly the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman faced. He spoke about people with posters who signed other people's nomination forms. I do not know whether that is a comment on their political literacy or on the system. The Government appreciate that there are real and major problems.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that she encountered a problem in her constituency where a candidate stood under the name of Fran Taylor. My right hon. Friend was No. 7 on the list and Fran Taylor was at No. 6 and Fran Taylor's name was called. Those who are mindful to deceive find it easy to put an idea in someone's mind.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke about personation. We laugh at the old adage, vote early and vote often, but it is not funny when such actions determine the outcome of an election. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering measures such as descriptions on ballot forms. Hon. Members will remember the use of the term "Literal Democrat". Rolling registers must also be considered. The Home Office working group on electoral procedures will shortly meet under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary of State, my near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). That group will look at electoral matters to determine how the House could solve some of the problems that have been adumbrated.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) spoke eloquently and passionately about a subject that is near to his heart—a new road. The roads review is broadly based and we need to ask fundamental questions in the context of an emerging integrated transport policy. The Government believe in consulting the public on the roads programme. That is a novelty compared with the actions of the previous Government. We sponsored two public consultations on the issue that my hon. Friend raised and the results are being carefully considered.
  Where do I begin to reply to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)? Do I start by taking responsibility on the Government's behalf for eradicating suicide this Christmas or should we revisit Kyoto and ensure that the Americans whole-heartedly agree with all that we say? Overnight, should we resolve all the difficulties in Cyprus? Resolution of the vitamin B6 problem would probably be simple. The hon. Gentleman presented a long list. I was baffled by his comments about the Palace theatre in Westcliff. I assume that he wants money for the theatre from the Eastern area arts board. I understood that such matters were deliberately placed at arm's length so that Ministers could not interfere, so it would be unprofessional and unethical for me to venture an opinion.
  288
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), I once again admit complete ignorance of all matters relating to mutual and non-mutual societies. I shall undertake to speak to my ministerial colleagues in the Treasury and give my hon. Friend a substantive reply.
  The speech by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) was almost an attack on the Government and I thought that the Opposition had finally found their feet. There was a swing of 11 per cent. to Labour in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, so not everybody was anti-Labour. There was a sniff, a slight smell, of NIMBYism in his view. I am certainly not a Sussex-phobe. He spoke about an extra 30,000 people and about the fumes from their cars, but such problems do not stop at the borders of West Sussex. They are part of a rather wider issue which the Kyoto conference tried to address.
  The hon. Gentleman engaged in unwarranted attacks on northern authorities. There are about 800,000 vacant homes in Britain, and 667,000 of them are privately owned. The Government are trying to draw attention to that imbalance and to engage in small, symbolic actions. That is why I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing at this morning's Centrepoint opening of accommodation for the homeless at Admiralty Arch. The idea that vast hordes of northern people are making their way here to steal homes from Sussex people is rather beyond the pale.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about the assisted places scheme. In opposition, I was one of those who worked on the policy to remove that scheme, which was invidious in educational and social terms. Happily, it has been removed.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) raised an issue that is dear to his heart and to those of many other Opposition and Labour Members. New experimental evidence shows that BSE infectivity may be present in tissues that are normally removed when beef is deboned. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has emphasised that the risk to consumers is very small, and we can agree on that. The Government's first priorities are the protection of the consumer and the maintenance of public confidence in food. Action is being taken, although I admit that it is precautionary, to ensure that consumers continue to get the highest protection against BSE. We will not play fast and loose with public health. No responsible Government could knowingly allow infected material into the human food chain. That would betray not only our standing with consumers but our trading position in Europe.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South rightly drew the House's attention to Child Support Agency services. There is no disagreement on the matter between the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), and me on that subject. All aspects of the agency's services will be examined in the Government's comprehensive spending review, which will seek ways to improve efficiency and effectiveness, especially in areas that are of greatest importance to parents. Like the hon. Member for Belfast, South, I have regularly had the distressing experience of trying to explain to my constituents the inequities of the system as it currently obtains.

  289
  In reply to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, I say that it is not possible to provide a realistic estimate of the cost involved in bringing the House back for one day. We know that we have to come back to deal with important business in the heavy legislative programme of a Government who are committed to change. Finally, I wish him, Opposition Members, my right hon. and hon. Friends and the staff of the House a very merry and happy Christmas.

  Mediation Services
  12.29 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the subject of mediation services in the Adjournment debate. My aim is to highlight the good work that all mediation services carry out, and to suggest that they are so cost-effective that the Government should consider promoting them in future.
  When I suggested the title for this Adjournment debate, I wondered which Minister would attend, as mediation services encompass a wide cross-section of the Government's corporate activity; and I am happy to see the Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), present today.
  Mediation is a process whereby a third party helps two disputing parties to resolve their disagreements. The disputing parties—not the mediator—determine the final outcome. Currently, mediation is used most commonly to resolve disputes between neighbours, and I shall concentrate on that aspect today. However, mediation is also applied to victims and offenders, bullying in schools, family feuds, divorce, domestic violence and commercial and industrial disputes.
  In mediation, the mediator approaches the first party, who has been referred to the service, then the second party, and attempts to get both parties to proceed to mediation. About 30 per cent. of those who agree to mediation meet face to face; of the rest, about 40 per cent. are dealt with by shuttle diplomacy, and various alternative solutions are found for the remainder. Mediators usually follow up cases after initial agreements have been reached, to ensure that they are long lasting. Agreements often involve reparation—for example, an apology or repair of damage.
  Only a small number of neighbour disputes are referred—89 per cent. are resolved informally between the neighbours themselves. Apart from self-referrals, most referrals come from the local authority, especially housing and environmental health departments, but they also come from the police and citizens advice bureaux.
  The cause of 60 per cent. of complaints is noise—for example, from barking dogs, hi-fi music, loud television sets, burglar alarms, noisy children, do-it-yourself activities and household appliances. Boundary disputes, untidy gardens, overhanging trees and the parking of vehicles are other prominent causes of dispute.
  Neighbour disputes can escalate out of control. They can become extremely costly both to the disputants and to the agencies involved, and they sometimes result in violence or even fatalities. At the very least, they can cause untold misery to many of our citizens—for example, a boundary dispute involving a fast-growing conifer hedge began in 1979, lasted 17 years and resulted in £100,000 in court costs.
  I joined Bolton metropolitan borough council in 1977. For 20 years, I have served its housing committee; I was its vice-chairman for two years and its chairman for 10 years from 1986 to 1996. I soon realised that elected members, but more especially housing and environmental health officers, spent a disproportionate amount of their time dealing with neighbour disputes.

  291
  I therefore decided to set up what became the first local authority-run neighbour dispute service in the entire United Kingdom—Bolton Neighbour Dispute Service, or BNDS. Its co-ordinator, Sue Parry, was appointed using inner-urban programme money in September 1991, and soon afterwards we appointed an administrative assistant, and 25 volunteers were sought and trained.
  On 29 June 1992, a pilot scheme was launched in the Deane and Daubhill areas of my constituency. In the first year, the budget was £29,300, and in the first six months 45 cases were dealt with. Bolton was careful to involve all householders, whether public sector or private. The budget for 1995–96 was £40,000, 50 per cent. being met from the housing revenue account and 50 per cent. from the general rate fund.
  Today, BNDS operates across the 110,000 homes of the borough. Although it is sponsored by the housing department and the council, it operates independent of the council. Up to a maximum of 42 volunteers have now enrolled for training. They have a job description, and handle one case at a time, often working in pairs.
  The Bolton service has been a model for the start-up of many similar schemes throughout the country. In the three months from April to June 1997, 49 cases were closed. Of those, eight were not thought suitable for mediation, eight first parties withdrew, and in a further eight cases, the second party was unwilling to participate. Of the remainder—that is, the 51 per cent. of referrals that agreed to participate—24 cases out of 25 were successfully resolved, which is a success rate of 96 per cent. That period snapshot is not atypical of the service.
  Mediation grew out of the United State and Australia. Neighbour mediation first appeared in the United Kingdom in 1980; by 1985, only three operational schemes were known; in 1996, there were 54 schemes; and today, in 1997, there are nearly 100. In other words, growth has been rapid in the 1990s. It is interesting to note that, in the early days, the Quakers showed the most interest in mediation.
  Despite the cost-effectiveness of mediation services, funding is the major constraint on growth. Some schemes have been supported by charitable trusts, but most rely on rather insecure local and national government grants. "Neighbour Disputes" by Jim Dignan, Angela Sorsby and Jeremy Hibbert, published by the university of Sheffield in 1996, is one of the few detailed pieces of research in this area, and it compares very favourably the costs of mediation with those of alternative approaches involving the courts and various legislative procedures. It would be nice if the Minister would look at the problem of funding, and promote mediation as an extremely cost-effective method of dealing with many issues.
  An umbrella organisation called Mediation UK developed in Beaconsfield from a Home Office secondment. Its headquarters has been in Bristol since 1991. Such a national organisation is essential to promote best practice, organise training and, perhaps most important, provide accreditation for new and old organisations alike. Mediation UK has a funding problem too.
  I shall briefly mention one spin-off from the BNDS—the "bully-free zone" programme, of which I am proud to be a patron. Bullying in our schools has been in the
  292
  headlines recently. In Bolton, a grant was obtained to introduce into eight volunteer pilot schools peer mediation, whereby trained senior pupils mediate between bullies and victims. Of course, serious cases are referred to school staff. Initial signs are good, and, if the pilot scheme proves successful, it will be expanded to all schools that want to participate.
  I am pleased to announce that, last week here in London, that pioneering scheme was honoured for outstanding citizenship at a major awards ceremony in memory of murdered London headmaster Philip Lawrence. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Mr. Lawrence's widow, Frances, presented a plaque to four young people who had participated in the scheme.
  I hope that I have demonstrated the usefulness of mediation services and I look forward to the Minister's response. I might add that Lord Woolf speaks very favourably of ADR—alternative dispute resolution—in his interim report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales, "Access to Justice", published in 1995.
  I thank the countless individuals, including thousands of volunteers, who have helped to make all the mediation services such a great success across the United Kingdom.
  12.40 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on his success in securing this debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the issues he has raised about mediation services—an extremely important subject.
  As my hon. Friend said, mediation is one of those subjects that cut across a number of Government Departments. He indicated some curiosity as to which Minister would reply, so I should start by offering him an explanation of why I am here.
  I am replying to the debate because my Department has been actively involved in encouraging and promoting mediation as a possible alternative, which may be more appropriate than the statutory routes and sanctions when dealing with some types of neighbour disputes. That is particularly true in relation to disputes involving noise, but it may also apply in some other disputes involving general anti-social behaviour.
  Complaints about neighbour noise have continued to rise in recent years. My Department set up a working party in October 1994 to investigate a variety of options for strengthening the current controls over neighbourhood noise nuisance. The working party considered, in particular, whether there were alternative, informal remedies that might provide swifter relief for noise sufferers.
  In its conclusions and recommendations, the working party acknowledged the value of informal remedies, such as mediation, to deal with complaints of noise nuisance. The working party agreed that local authorities and the public should continue to be encouraged to resolve neighbour dispute problems informally, where this was appropriate.
  In November 1994, the Department issued an information paper, "Mediation; Benefits and Practice", to chief environmental health and chief housing officers

  293
  in local authorities in England and Wales. That paper encouraged local authorities to consider mediation as a possible option to resolve noise and other neighbour disputes. In addition, my Department, when responding to noise complaints, includes in correspondence leaflets that mention
  "the services of mediation as a solution to disputes."
  The working party also recommended that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health should produce best-practice guidance for distribution to local authorities on the management of noise services. Within the "Noise Management Guide", which was published in February this year, the institute has recommended that
  "mediation should be considered as an integral part of the local authority response to noise complaints".
  My hon. Friend referred to the work of the Bolton neighbourhood dispute service, which he helped to set up. I congratulate him on that initiative; I was pleased to learn of the project's success.
  In my constituency, there is a very successful mediation service called the Greenwich mediation service. The organisation is funded from the housing revenue account, and currently only handles disputes involving council tenants. However, I understand that the source funding may be changed to enable the service to be available to all borough residents, as is clearly the case in Bolton with the initiative that my hon. Friend helped to establish.
  My hon. Friend referred to research on neighbour disputes undertaken by the centre for criminology and legal research at the university of Sheffield. That was jointly funded by the then Department of the Environment and the Lankelly Foundation. That research considered the cost-effectiveness of mediation and alternative approaches.
  The report's findings call into question the effectiveness of both the formal and informal approaches conventionally adopted for handling neighbour disputes. It suggests that mediation might offer a more constructive solution to the problem where both parties are willing to give it a try.
  The findings also suggest that there is genuine scope for significant savings to be made by using mediation in appropriate cases, especially in relation to some of the more intractable neighbour disputes with which housing and environmental services are routinely called to deal. The report proposes a strategy for increasing the number of cases that could be dealt with by means of mediation, and identifies a number of suggestions for further research.
  In order to publicise the message contained in that report, the then Department of the Environment sent in November 1996 a copy of its executive summary, and a leaflet which gave advice to those considering setting up a community mediation service, to each chief housing and environmental health officer of every local authority in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  In March 1996, the DOE appointed the Building Research Establishment to undertake research that would increase the understanding of domestic noise complaints. The research was designed to address a number of issues, including the reasons for the complaints, the main types of noise sources, how the noise was measured and assessed, and the most effective methods adopted to resolve disputes. The project was to include an
  294
  exploration of the effectiveness of current procedures for dealing with domestic noise complaints from the perspective of the investigating officer, the complainant and the person complained about.
  The BRE research has found that there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes a satisfactorily resolved complaint between all three parties. On the ground of common sense, that is hardly surprising.
  On mediation, the BRE believes that there is a need for guidelines that clarify the point at which mediation can be recommended without exposing the investigating officer to complaints of maladministration. It also concludes that the resolution of complaints by direct negotiation between neighbours should be facilitated, wherever appropriate. That endorses the view expressed by my hon. Friend when describing the work of the Bolton mediation service. The Department has only recently received the BRE's final report, and we are considering how best to publicise the report and what points need to be addressed.
  I acknowledge my hon. Friend's concerns about funding, both for local mediation services and at a national level. At the local level, it is up to each local authority to decide how much is spent on which service in the light of local needs and priorities. Many local authorities, such as Bolton metropolitan district council and my authority in Greenwich, have established or supported local mediation services.
  At the national level, my Department has been funding the umbrella organisation, Mediation UK—to which my hon. Friend alluded—since 1 April 1994, under the environmental action fund. That funding runs for a three-year cycle, and Mediation UK is now in its third year of EAF funding. In total, it has received more than £90,000 from my Department in that period.
  For 1997–98, Mediation UK set a target of helping to bring 18 new community mediation services into existence, bringing that up to a total of 90 centres by 1998. It has already helped to set up 17 centres so far in 1997, and may well exceed its target. I believe that that is money well spent.
  Mediation UK has submitted an application for a further three-year period of EAF support. It has submitted a bid for a grant of £50,300 in 1998–99. However, EAF funding is subject to great competition. My Department receives a large number of high-quality bids seeking the limited funding. We shall be considering all applications for EAF grant early next year, and hope to announce the successful applicants in early February. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand that I cannot pre-empt the process by saying whether Mediation UK's application is likely to be successful. However, I stress that we expect voluntary bodies to look widely for other sources of funding, including grants or sponsorship from the private sector and charitable trusts.
  My hon. Friend referred to the contribution of the right hon. Lord Woolf in his interim report on alternative dispute resolution to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor's Department has taken forward Lord Woolf's recommendations on ADR in several ways.
  First, the Lord Chancellor's Department has published a booklet entitled "Resolving Disputes Without Going to Court" to help to make the public more aware of the possibilities that ADR can offer. I understand that the

  295
  Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has recently sent copies of the booklet to new hon. Members for use in their constituency offices.
  The booklet lists different organisations, including Mediation UK, that offer mediation, conciliation and arbitration services for non-family disputes. It gives a brief description of those services, and sets out some of their advantages and shortcomings. It is available from county courts, the royal courts of justice and many citizens advice bureaux and law centres. Copies have also been placed in the reference sections of public libraries, and have been sent to business links and business connect centres in England and Wales respectively. The Scottish Courts Administration has produced a similar publication covering Scotland.
  Secondly, the Lord Chancellor's Department has recently consulted on case management proposals that provide an automatic three-month stay on request, if parties wish to use ADR. The Lord Chancellor is considering the responses to that consultation with a view to implementing the proposals in April 1999 as part of his package of civil justice reforms.
  Thirdly, in November 1995, approval was given for a pilot scheme for alternative dispute resolution at Central London county court. The scheme has been running since May 1996. The Lord Chancellor's Department is funding academic research into the scheme to evaluate the impact of mediation on the outcome of cases.
  Of particular interest and significance is the fact that the researcher is investigating why parties and/or their representatives have rejected the offer of mediation. Further pilot schemes are running at Bristol county court and in the Court of Appeal. The Lord Chancellor will examine the results of the research closely before deciding
  296
  his next steps. He is concerned to assess whether current schemes result in successful and satisfactory outcomes and save money for both the parties concerned and the civil justice system.
  My hon. Friend referred to his role as patron to the "bully-free zone" programme in Bolton. I was interested to hear about the pilot scheme introducing peer mediation in schools. Bullying and peer mediation in schools are, of course, matters for my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment. However, I know that the Department takes the issue seriously, and I understand that it has made an anti-bullying pack available to all maintained schools in England.
  It is important for schools to decide which strategies for tackling bullying best meet their pupils' needs and circumstances. In some situations, peer mediation may provide the answer, but in others a different approach may be necessary and more effective. Over the coming months, colleagues at the Department will consider what action might be taken to help schools to tackle and reduce bullying.
  I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that the Government fully recognise the value that mediation can bring to the community. We do, however, recognise that using mediation to resolve a dispute may not always be possible or successful. Nevertheless, it is certainly one of the preferred options, and a much more civilised method than a confrontational approach.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):As the Minister for the next debate is not yet with us, I shall suspend the sitting until 1 o'clock.
  12.53pm
  Sitting suspended.

  Funeral Services
  On resuming—
  1 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. What happens when an hon. Member is ready to make a speech but the Minister is not present? Is there any point in continuing without a Minister?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The Standing Orders of the House are quite clear: we do exactly what we have just done.
  Mr. Chidgey: I will make my remarks and hope that someone will respond to them in due course.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter that is causing widespread concern—namely the lack of regulation of the provision of funeral services. That concern is felt by the users of the services, who are the relatives of the deceased, and by the providers of the services, the funeral directors themselves. It is also now felt by charity workers who find themselves involved in selling prepaid funeral plans on commission for their charities. There is also concern in the financial services sector which finds that prepaid plans are being sold in the same way as financial services but without any statutory control.
  I will speak for only about 10 minutes because I know that the Minister—who is not in his place—is keenly aware of the issue and I want to leave him as much time as possible to outline his proposals.
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): The Minister is in his place. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell the House whether the account in the Evening Standard, to the effect that he has already raised the issue in the House, is accurate. It is not customary to use the past tense; hon. Members usually make a speech first and then issue a press release.
  Mr. Chidgey: I am sure that I can resolve the confusion after I have finished my speech. I apologise for not recognising that the Minister was in his place; there was some confusion due to his late arrival.
  One of the main causes of concern is cold calling by telephone—for instance, selling memorial plaques months after a cremation has taken place but while the bereaved are still suffering the trauma of losing a relative. The Mail on Sunday featured the case of Christine Hall from East Sussex, who received a mail shot advertising a prepaid funeral service. A few days after she had thrown it away, she received a telephone call from a charity which wanted to know whether she had received the literature it had sent her and whether she was interested in buying such a plan. She was asked whether she had booked a burial plot for herself and her husband and told that if she had not she should do so quickly. Christine is 62 and was upset by the timing of the call—and rightly so, as her husband Henry is 89 and seriously ill. It was a traumatic experience for them.
  298
  The Daily Mirror reported the case of Vanessa Rylance from Birkenhead, a woman whose 77-year old mother was diagnosed as having cancer. Days after her mother had left hospital, Vanessa received a hard-sell letter suggesting that she take out a plan to cover her death.
  I will deal now with the concerns of the providers—the traditional, family-run funeral firms. It is now common knowledge that funeral provision is big business, and multinational organisations are moving into the market. In fact, some 25 per cent. of the business was bought by one company, which led to the involvement of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In due course, that company was required to make some divestments to bring it within the regulations.
  There is a lack of transparency about the ownership of funeral firms. As the Minister will know, there is a requirement for owners of a company to make their names and interests clear. When family businesses are bought out, there are far too many instances of the old name still appearing over the door of the funeral parlour; it is not until one goes into the back room that one finds a small plaque revealing the true owners of the firm.
  There is also a lack of transparency in the prices. Far too often, people telephone funeral directors and receive a low quote, but the full price is not made clear. Once they get into the parlour, they are persuaded to spend far more on the funeral than they intended. The price quoted is the price of the funeral alone and does not include the cost of the burial plot, the church service, a book of remembrance, which is apparently becoming the vogue, or the headstone. There are disturbing cases of headstones being offered at a price way above that which would be charged if one went directly to the stonemason. In addition, plots rented in a crematorium have a habit of increasing in price over the years until the rents are far greater than was ever imagined.
  There is also concern about mergers in the funeral business. Many family firms are being merged into international corporations, leading to lack of choice and competition. If one organisation owns the funeral parlours, crematoriums and cemeteries and provides the prepayment plans, that clearly means the removal of choice and a reduction of competition. The most worrying development, however, is that the same firms are now winning contracts for NHS bereavement services.
  National health service hospitals are now in the business of contracting out those services that are not considered core health services—one of which is the bereavement service. Hospitals are putting the provision of such services out to tender, and it is understood that in one case a firm has offered to provide the service at a zero price. Why should anyone provide a service for nothing? Unfortunately, a large hospital can expect hundreds—perhaps even a thousand—deaths per year, and that number of funerals is big business.
  It is very difficult for a bereaved relative or the relative of someone who is dying to distinguish between a bereavement counsellor, who is a trained psychologist and understands the effect of trauma, and a bereavement officer employed by a huge corporation whose main objective is to sell funerals.
  My final and most important point relates to the marketing, selling and management of prepaid funeral plans. There has been some unfortunate negative publicity in the press about the selling of such plans by a firm called

  299
  SCI, an American funeral giant which is an offshoot of Age Concern. Age Concern is a highly respected charity which does a great deal of good work. It aspires to raise standards and introduce quality into the provision of funeral services.
  Age Concern is a highly commendable charity, but it is impossible for an organisation to control the activities of over-zealous salesmen at the point of sale, and there are too many cases of elderly people suffering distress when subjected to the hard-sell approach. That distress is keenly felt by the charity workers. Negative publicity works against charitable aims, and I hope that Age Concern will be reviewing that aspect of the matter very carefully. Locking in prepaid funeral plans to one provider of funeral services is fundamentally anti-competitive. Anyone purchasing such a plan is obliged to use SCI-owned funeral parlours, so the plans limit choice and remove competition.
  About £250 million is now invested in prepaid funeral plans, and there seems to be no regulation of the management of the funds thus amassed and no provision for purchasers to benefit from the profits accrued by those investments. The plans seem to be totally free of the requirements applying to other financial services under the financial services legislation.
  Two years ago, the Office of Fair Trading recommended regulation of the funeral services industry. I understand that one of the Minister's colleagues is keenly interested—
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my interest in regulation, because I wrote to him last week when he secured this debate. In his reply to me, he said that he could not allow me any time in the 15 minutes allotted for his speech because of the many Opposition Members who wished to speak in the debate. Where are they?
  Mr. Chidgey: That was a spurious intervention. The point that I made to the hon. Gentleman—in a private letter which was written with the best of intentions—was that many hon. Members had asked to speak in this debate and I felt that it was only fair to say no to them all or there would be insufficient time for me to say what I hoped to say in 10 minutes, thereby allowing the Minister ample time to reply. That point should have been well taken by the hon. Gentleman.
  I understand that the Minister's colleagues are well aware of the issue. When in opposition, the Government stated that they would examine the matter very soon after coming to power. I hope that the Minister has come today with some firm proposals and a timetable for legislation to regulate provision of funeral services, and in particular to deal with the issue of transparency of ownership of funeral parlours, crematoria and cemeteries, so as to maintain choice, competition and quality.
  I hope especially that the Government have proposals to draw a clear line between NHS hospitals' bereavement counselling services and contracted-out bereavement services—which is really just another name for the commercial opportunity provided for large funeral directors to access markets for thousands of funerals.
  300
  I hope also that the Minister has proposals to regulate prepaid funeral plans so that investors in those plans, like investors in other schemes, will be covered by the Financial Services Act 1986.
  I apologise to the Minister for not recognising him at the start of the debate, but I thought that the matter was the responsibility of one of his colleagues.
  1.11 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) for the opportunity that he has given to the House to review this important issue. I welcome also the keen interest taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) in the funeral industry and in the problems that people may face when dealing with it. With more than 600,000 funerals organised every year in Britain, the subject touches the lives of millions of relatives.
  People tend to use funeral directors at a time of maximum stress, and at such a vulnerable time it is important that they should receive proper protection. Fortunately, British funeral directors have a very long tradition of consoling relatives and of organising funerals with all the care and attention that is so important at that time. I want the high values that traditional British funeral directors have long upheld to be maintained. Some family firms have seen those values passed down through generations.
  Almost three years ago, in 1995, the Office of Fair Trading reviewed the United Kingdom funeral business. The then Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg, said:
  "the vast majority of those in business are honest, competent and concerned to meet consumers' needs responsibly."
  That is as true today as it was then. However, Sir Bryan also warned of the risks facing the public from dishonest or incompetent funeral directors—who are only a tiny minority. He said, however, that the risks are significant.
  It took the previous Government more than 12 months to consider Sir Bryan's report. They started consultation last year, but the findings were never published or shared with the public; they were—if the House will forgive the pun—buried.
  On 7 May 1997, shortly after the general election, I met the new Director General of Fair Trading, John Bridgeman. We discussed, among other things, the 1995 report. I asked officials at the Department of Trade and Industry to examine the issue afresh and to report to me the options open to the new Government.
  I have contacted all the main funeral trade associations, asking them what action they are taking to ensure that people who buy funeral plans are fully protected.
  Mr. Chidgey: Will the Minister perhaps clarify when he will be able to reach a conclusion on the recommendations made to him by his officials?
  Mr. Griffiths: On 1— December 1997, I responded to a parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Gentleman. We appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the issue, and we hope to reach a conclusion as early in the new year as possible.

  301
  Because of previous inaction, it is very important that the director general's report on action to deal with findings that are now more than three years old should be updated so that we do not try to take action against problems which have changed. I do not believe that problems no longer exist—we know that they do—but we should take that important opportunity to update our knowledge of the situation.
  Mr. Caplin: In my hon. Friend's deliberations with officials and industry, will the establishment an independent ombudsman service be considered so that real consumer protection can be provided to those about whom the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) is so concerned?
  Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is a great advocate of such a service, which he asked me about on 1 December. As I said then, I would certainly welcome the emergence of an independent scheme to protect consumers.
  To avoid creating any doubt among those who provide funerals—funeral directors and prepayment plan providers—I have written to the main trade organisations asking what action they are taking to ensure that people who buy funeral plans are fully protected. I am seeking confirmation that in the case of prepaid funeral plans there is a binding obligation on the funeral director to perform the contract irrespective of any payment that the funeral director receives from the plan provider, and that that obligation is enforceable by the plan holder or his or her estate.
  There are therefore three parties to the agreements: the person who takes out a contract, or his or her relative; the plan provider, who initially receives the money; and the person—the funeral director—who will provide the funeral. I am investigating whether, as I hope, the funeral director has a binding agreement with the person who has paid for the plan. It is up to funeral directors to ensure that they receive the money from the plan provider.
  Mr. Chidgey: I draw the Minister's attention to plan providers—the person or organisation with whom the money is invested. I am concerned to hear the Minister's proposals for regulation of the sums involved, which are now considerable. Has he—from his deliberations and discussions—anything more to offer on regulation?
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I certainly hope to be able to offer the hon. Gentleman the plans. That was the exact subject of his previous helpful intervention, to which I replied. It goes to the core of the issues that are being considered and I shall make an announcement in due course and in the appropriate way. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking into that matter.
  In the meantime, so that the House does not think that the Government are not taking the firmest possible action to reassure people, we have been in touch with the funeral trade associations proposing how they should fulfil their contracts and asking them for assurances that funeral directors will honour their contract with the relative or bereaved person in respect of the plan provider. Naturally, the major plan providers are companies of considerable repute. It is important that the funeral director is aware that he or she has a contract with the person who has taken out the plan and that he can recover the money from
  302
  the plan provider. If that is not the case, I am seeking their confirmation that, in any case, they are obliged to carry out the funeral.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly touched on other matters of concern, including marketing practices. I have written to the Advertising Standards Authority asking whether it is taking action to ensure that any or all such advertising fully complies with its code. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a charity. Where plan providers are linked to a charity, I have asked the Charity Commission to advise on whether there is any abuse or malpractice.
  The hon. Gentleman raised two specific cases involving Age Concern. I received a letter from Age Concern giving its side of the story. In the first case that he mentioned, the newspaper article suggests that the person was the recipient of an unsolicited mailing. Age Concern tells me that its records show that she responded to an information leaflet about the Age Concern funeral plan carried in My Weekly, that she requested a brochure with further information and was telephoned to check whether she required more information. There was no question of a hard sell of a plot and the conversation ended amicably.
  In the second case, a different newspaper report suggested that the person had received an unsolicited mailing about a funeral plan shortly after being diagnosed with cancer. I understand that that person was initially mailed as an existing Age Concern insurance customer and subsequently received an information pack about the Age Concern funeral plan. We have been informed by the charity that of course she will not receive any follow-up mailing. Age Concern apologised if she or her family were upset. However, the charity informs me that it has received no direct complaint from the person to whom the hon. Gentleman referred or from her family. The problem that we all face as responsible right hon. and hon. Members and Ministers is that if an hon. Member raises two cases which, for all the sensationalism that there may have been in newspaper reports, do not appear to stand up, it is important—and I urge all hon. Members to do so—either to correct the account that we have received from a highly responsible charity or to provide other cases. My door is never shut to cases of abuse of the nature that was alleged in the newspaper article.
  Mr. Chidgey: I certainly endorse what the Minister has said. I have met the chief executive of Age Concern and I know the sincerity of that charity's approach. My point was not in respect of the merits of the cases; I was drawing attention to the fact that, whether or not the publicity was accurate, it still occurred. I am concerned about its effects on the reputation of the charity.
  Mr. Griffiths: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. It would have been helpful if he had drawn attention to the other side of the story—that of Age Concern—as I have done.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to other important matters. There must be transparency in contract terms and trust arrangements. It is vital that the inclusive costs of any funeral and any additional costs are included in the prepayment plan or that any omission is made perfectly clear to those considering taking out the plan so that they can seek a more comprehensive plan or a cheaper plan that is not all-inclusive. Of course we want to ensure that information is available on the fees paid to plan providers.

  303
  It is also important that all the aspects that I have raised with the Advertising Standards Authority and the Charity Commission fall within existing, well worked and acceptable codes.
  Mr. Chidgey: May I return to a previous point? We have looked at the Minister's proposals for regulation of the providers of pre-paid funeral plans and I am grateful for his answer on that. However, by purchasing a plan from a large organisation, one is inevitably locked into using one of its funeral directors. The issue is whether that limits competition and choice. Is it possible to separate investing in a pre-paid funeral plan from using a particular funeral provider? A national charity may be in a good position to consider whether a funeral director should have to subscribe to certain standards in order to be one of the recommended, preferred or accepted funeral directors able to access a pre-paid plan purchased from a separate or third party. I hope that the Minister can also address my problem in respect of the NHS bereavement services.
  Mr. Griffiths: I will do so as soon as I have answered the hon. Gentleman's previous question. As part of the investigation by the Director General of Fair Trading into the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report and the subsequent dealings with one major provider that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind, the director general is responsible for monitoring any undertakings given and a review of the position is about to be undertaken by the director general's officials. There are concerns about transparency in respect of price and ownership. If such concerns persist in the industry, the Director General of Fair Trading will consider whether any other issues need further consideration or study.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a valid point about the role of hospitals. A complaint has been lodged in respect of one hospital—the Central Middlesex Hospitals trust—because of its decision to provide mortuary and bereavement services. The Director General of Fair Trading has considered the arrangements under competition legislation,
  304
  but found no evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, either on the part of the hospital or by the successful contractor, which would justify the use of the director general's competition powers.
  As always, however, if further evidence is presented by any aggrieved party, hon. Members or anyone else, the director general will examine the matter afresh. In that respect, and in respect of advertising and marketing reports, it is important to put into perspective what has been done and the action that has been taken by the Government and organisations such as the Office of Fair Trading and to examine all the ramifications and aspects of the issue.
  Mr. Chidgey: I commend the Minister's openness in discussing the issue and, as the months go by, I hope to have the opportunity to consider the possibilities of regulation and legislation in more detail, and in a more consultative way, perhaps outside the House.
  Mr. Griffiths: Certainly our examination of the issue will not lack detail. I should summarise for the House the steps that we have already taken and where we will go from here.
  We have been in touch with the Advertising Standards Authority in writing about alleged abuse by one provider and possible breach of the authority's code. I hope to have the opportunity to report its findings in due course. Likewise, we have been in touch with the Charity Commission about concerns that have been expressed in the House and elsewhere about a commercial arrangement between charities and funeral providers which may not be fully transparent. Of course such an arrangement must be fully transparent, as I am sure that all hon. Members would agree.
  We have taken an important step in contacting all the major associations of funeral providers to ensure that they spell out to their members their legal obligations, which may be wider than some hon. Members had thought. As I have said previously, the way ahead is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

  Burnley Valuation Office
  1.30pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this important issue. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to reconsider the proposal to close Burnley valuation office. I first became concerned about the proposed closure in December 1995; the proposal was first made around May that year. I have become increasingly concerned about the matter this year, partly because the decision was becoming imminent. Indeed, the decision has now been taken and the Burnley office is set to close.
  The Burnley valuation office is an important office, which has a staff of about 32 people. It serves my constituency, the borough of Burnley, Blackburn, Hyndburn, Ribble Valley, Rossendale and Pendle—an area of 500,000 people. It serves that area very well and is well respected, but it is due to close in March 1999. Although I shall specifically speak about the Burnley office, I recognise that some of the issues may apply to other proposed closures. I do not know the details of those other cases; I am particularly concerned with the Burnley office.
  This morning, I received a fax that informed me that Veronica Lowe, the chief executive officer of the Valuation Office agency, surprisingly announced her resignation on Friday. She had been very much involved in overseeing the proposed changes. That announcement followed another one last week. Mr. Mike Jordan, the director of business resources, announced that he is to take early retirement in March 1998. He has masterminded—if that is the right word—the changes. The name of the programme of changes is Newvos—new valuation offices. Veronica Lowe's resignation was surprising because, only a few months ago, we were dealing with an acting chief executive officer, Mr. Peter Upton, who has since retired. Veronica Lowe had not held the post for all that long before Mr. Upton became the acting chief executive while she was off.
  Having dealt with the issue through a fair amount of correspondence—I shall refer to some of it—I do not believe that the case has yet been made for the closure. It is my view that the Minister has been ill advised. Indeed, some people think she may have been misinformed. I felt that it was only right to call this debate to force the issues into the open and allow them to be scrutinised.
  In May 1997, Mr. Varley, the then district valuer and valuation officer in Burnley, wrote to Mr. Upton, who was at that time director of operations. Incidentally, Mr. Varley has also retired. He was succeeded for a short time by Mr. Speight and subsequently succeeded by Mr. Borland, who had been the district valuer in Burnley some time previously. All the national and local staff changes are quite puzzling. I mention that particularly, because the way in which the staff are being moved around like pawns must be most disturbing for them and must introduce a certain inconsistency.
  In his letter in May, Mr. Varley made a very detailed case for the Burnley office to remain open. He said:
  "We were pleased to hear from Mike"—
  that is Mike Jordan, to whom I referred—
  "that no final decision to close the Burnley office has been taken, and that it is recognised that Burnley is an 'extremely efficient office'. Mike Jordan's express wish that this efficiency be replicated nationwide is an essential element of our own thinking."
  306
  Mr. Varley detailed why the Burnley office should remain open under the headings of cost effectiveness, customer service and business development. He said that, due to the 23 miles between Burnley and Preston, travel costs would substantially increase, as would the amount of non-productive time spent on case work. He referred to items such as office rental, which in Burnley is only 50 to 60 per cent. of the cost in Preston. Rents in Preston are higher because it is on the InterCity network and at a major convergence of the motorway network. He also pointed out that car parking is significantly cheaper in Burnley.
  Mr. Upton replied on 25 July to the representations that I had made in the interim:
  "The proposals for streamlining the Agency network of local valuation offices were detailed … in a letter of 19 July 1995"
  He said that, on 10 May 1996, the Valuation Office's former chief executive, John Langford—yet another name which has come into the picture—wrote to me in response to the concerns that I had expressed at that stage. Mr. Upton continued:
  "No final decision on implementing will be made before the views of all concerned have been carefully considered."
  Mr. Upton wrote to me again on 5 September:
  "A consensus has been reached with the trades unions representing Valuation Office staff, and … will include the merger of the office that covers your constituency with adjoining offices."
  That two-page letter does not say what will happen to the Burnley office until appendix B, which I think is a strange way of going about things. The Burnley office will be merged into the Preston office. Preston will become a group office with satellite offices in Lancaster, Carlisle and Ulverston. Those three satellite offices are all in west Lancashire. The Burnley office covers east Lancashire, which is very different. As I said, Burnley is effectively a city of 500,000 people, although it is covered by six different local authorities.
  On 25 September, I wrote to Mr. Upton and sent an almost identical letter to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. I made a number of points in favour of the reconsideration of the case:
  "I do not believe closure and moving the office into extra space at Preston will save money. Office space at Preston is dearer than in Burnley. I understand staff in Burnley did put forward proposals on how money could be saved. Have these proposals been considered? … The service level at present is excellent, I feel it will be worse at Preston. It will certainly be less local and that is contrary to policy aims of the new Government."
  On coming into office, the Labour Government stressed the provision of services near the local people, wherever possible. I accept that that is not always possible, but we should aim for it.
  My letter continued:
  "It will also mean in the long run less job opportunities here"—
  in Burnley—
  "as the job range is very narrow."
  North-east Lancashire, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who is in his place, is heavily dependent on manufacturing jobs. There is nothing wrong with that—indeed, I have worked in manufacturing myself—but we need a wider range of jobs. While the majority of employees of the valuation office will move to Preston, when they retire in future years the jobs will probably be filled by people from the west side of the county, not the east.

  307
  Burnley borough council's local taxation officer, Michael Frazer, wrote to me to express his concern. The council has pursued the issue for some time. He made an additional point about the impact on local government in east Lancashire, because all the local boroughs felt that they had received excellent service because the office was based in east Lancashire. The council wrote to me again on 13 October to make a further point:
  "Consultation is currently taking place about the possibility of a Council Tax revaluation and future revaluations — If such revaluation becomes a reality, it appears that the Burnley office would have a crucial role to play in the process."
  I then consulted other Members of Parliament in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle had already expressed concern independently about the proposal and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) have also raised issues arising from the proposed closure. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary wrote to me on 18 November:
  "I am generally content with the thrust of the change proposals concerning improved service".
  She continued:
  "A ballot of the Agency's Trades Union membership has now been conducted and the structure, based on 24 Groups over the country with a total of 85 offices, has been accepted."
  In the intervening period, I received several letters from Veronica Lowe and Michael Jordan, all of which I considered unsatisfactory. I wrote back on one occasion to say that I felt that they had responded inappropriately to issues raised by a Member of Parliament. Their letters had dodged questions about costs, which are crucial to the proposed closure of the Burnley office. They were also not prepared to answer questions about how much extra office space would be needed at Preston; what extra costs would be involved; or what the union vote really meant.
  The latter question is important, because the union vote has been interpreted wrongly. I have received a letter from the Preston branch—the very office that will become a group office—which stated:
  "the overwhelming number of the staff who work here"—
  in Preston—
  "are appalled that Burnley office is to close down, indeed at a recent ballot on the office closure programme 90 per cent. of staff voted against the proposals."
  I then received a letter from a higher level in the Public Services, Tax and Commerce Union, Inland Revenue Group, which stated:
  "Firstly the trades unions have not accepted the restructuring proposals, the ballot question asked members to 'acknowledge that the new VOA"—
  the Valuation Office—
  "Group Structure will be implemented', and sought to allow national officials to continue negotiations on the many issues the restructuring has thrown up. That does not constitute acceptance."
  The union's claim is that the ballot was about whether—if the restructuring was forced on members—the union should be involved in discussions about what should then happen. It is realistic for the union to say that it wants to be involved, but that does not mean that it can be claimed that the union approves the change that will take place.
  308
  Many questions still have not been answered. What are the redundancy costs involved in closure, because some staff will not be able to move? How much new office space will be required in Preston and how much will it cost? What are the implications of additional travel costs? Has the fact that rent will have to be paid in Burnley until 31 December 1999, even though the building will not be used, been taken into account? Is it not a fact that savings of 21.6 per cent. have been made between 1995–96 and that it is planned to save a further 7 per cent. through productivity gains, not including the restructuring proposals?
  The chief executive has gone. The person who proposed and masterminded the changes has also announced that he will go. Is not it now time to throw the proposals in the bin, reconsider the situation and decide on the right way forward? Even if other valuation offices must close, there is a good case for the Burnley office, which has provided such good service in the local area for so many years, to stay open to continue to provide that service.
  1.46 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I shall try to answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), especially about the trade union, because it needs to make up its mind what it has agreed and what it has not. I shall return to that point later.
  My hon. Friend knows the background to the introduction of the new office structure for the Valuation Office. He mentioned staff turnover, and I hope that he will accept my word, as a friend as well as a Minister, when I say that I cannot discuss the specific points that he made about staff. He mentioned the chief executive of the Valuation Office and her decision to resign last week. I can assure him that her resignation is not connected to the Newvos project.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the project director and his intention to leave, which is an unconnected personal decision. I understand the point he makes about the apparent turnover of staff, but I assure him that that is not connected with this issue.
  Mr. Pike: I have known my hon. Friend for a long time, and I accept 100 per cent. what she says and the spirit in which it was intended. Nevertheless, the changes provide an opportunity for a rethink—although I accept that that change is totally unrelated and has been made for personal reasons.
  Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is highlighting what may be the concerns of others, and I hope that my comments will help to calm things down during a difficult time for many members of staff.
  I will not go over the background to the reorganisation, as my hon. Friend has—in exchanges of letters over the years—explained the origins of the proposals and their purpose. However, in terms of the Burnley case, he does not accept the purpose, which is to improve the quality and level of service, to make it more flexible, to respond to changing work loads and technologies and to ensure that the agency is well placed and has a firm footing for the future.

  309
  I turn to the question of the trade unions and the rethink for which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley has asked. On my appointment, I met the management of the Valuation Office agency and asked them to reassess the plans on Newvos. I also met the trade unions and heard their comments. I clearly explained to the trade unions the problems with regard to the inherited budgets for the running costs of Departments—of which they were aware—and our manifesto commitment.
  I asked the unions and the management to go away, reconsider the proposals and come back with an agreed set of proposals, which they did. A number of offices that were due for closure—regrettably, Burnley was not one of them—were removed from the closure programme, and the number of groups in the structure of the Valuation Office was increased. I concentrated particularly—as my hon. Friend, the management and the unions urged me—on making sure that the Valuation Office was building on its efficiency and had a firm and secure base for its staff. At no point have the unions indicated to me that they are unhappy with the negotiated settlement—in fact, I have been led to believe that the opposite is the case.
  I wish to refer to Mr. Peter Upton, who retired from the agency but delayed his retirement because the chief executive was off ill. This was a time of change for the agency and we are grateful for the hard work that Mr. Upton undertook. He wrote to every single employee of the Valuation Office to explain the package that had been agreed. The package was not only about removing some of the offices that were due for closure after the reassessment; it indicated the process that would need to be in place to support staff and to ensure that the change was managed properly so staff did not feel insecure or uncertain about their future.
  We all accept that change is difficult, particularly for those who are experiencing it. If my hon. Friend has not seen the letter from Mr. Upton, I will send a copy to him. I hope that he will forgive me for sending him another letter.
  There are currently 33 staff in post at the Burnley office, five of whom are part time. All staff have received the location transfer preference form. From the preferences known so far, most of the staff have indicated that they are prepared to transfer to Preston. One has requested a transfer to Halifax, and three to Manchester. Only three have suggested that they could not move to Preston, one of whom has said he would like to be considered for early retirement. I hope that my hon. Friend sees nothing untoward in that request, which I am sure fits in with the member of staffs current life style. It has nothing to do with our forcing him out of the agency. Two others have not specified an alternative, and discussions will have to take place to ensure that their cases are handled properly.
  There is enough room in the Preston office to take the staff from Burnley. As my hon. Friend knows, the lease at Burnley is up for renewal. I do not have the exact date
  310
  to hand, but the lease was due to expire close to the time of the closure programme. There will be minimal redundancies following the move, and the question of the rent at Preston has been dealt with.
  Mr. Pike: I have been told by people not only from the Burnley office but from the Preston office that there is not enough room to fit in the 30-odd staff.
  Dawn Primarolo: This matter will not be resolved between my hon. Friend and me, because my information is that there is enough space. I will write to him, and his point is on the record. I shall seek clarification.
  On the question of travelling costs, the staff are mobile. I do not know where they all live, as opposed to where they work. If that information is available, my hon. Friend Burnley will receive an explanation. The decision on the Burnley office was based on questions of accessibility and future development in terms of changing work patterns of the Valuation Office. In addition, the recently opened M65 motorway, which links Burnley with Blackburn in east Lancashire to both the M6 and the M61, will significantly improve communication links.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked closely at the issue and we have considered the decisions made since the election. The questions of efficiency, the service to the local area and the costs have been satisfied by the proposals which have been agreed within the budgets that the three groups for which I am the responsible Minister—revenue, customs and the Valuation Office—have to continue to meet.
  Having talked to the unions, my understanding is that they accept the agreement, and they entered the discussion on how best to deal with the proposals. They were not press ganged into it. They did so in order to reach agreement—otherwise, they would still be arguing. I accept that some local offices may not agree, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would send me a copy of the letter he has from the PTC. So that we can make plans, some clarification may be required about whether it holds constant views.
  I regret to say that I do not think there is a case for reopening the decision on the Burnley closure, which will take effect in spring 1999. I accept, and I have impressed on the management of the Valuation Office, that it is crucial to support the staff so that they feel secure and we have better services at the end of the process. I undertake to respond to any questions to which my hon. Friend feels he has not received an adequate answer. It was right for him to bring the debate to the House today, and I hope at least that I have explained what we have done.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  The Chancellor was asked—
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Food Standards Agency
    Mr. Fabricant: What representations he has received on his proposals for a food standards agency. [19600]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): As chairman of the relevant ministerial committee, I have received representations from a wide range of bodies, from consumer organisations to food manufacturers. There is clear agreement on the need for reform and strong support for the establishment of a food standards agency.
    Mr. Fabricant: Following the debacle over the beef-on-the-bone crisis, in which confusion has been piled on confusion, and given that the Government have been unable to enforce the ban, what difference will a food standards agency make?
    Dr. Clark: It ill becomes of member of the Conservative party, which presided over food scare after food scare, including salmonella, BSE and E. coli, to lecture the House on the work of a food standards agency. If we had had such an agency, the loss of confidence that the British people have experienced in our very fine food industry might well have been averted.
    Mr. Barnes: Was not the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food considered under the previous Government to be in hock to the producers at the expense of consumer interests? Is not the food standards agency an arrangement whereby the rights of consumers can be fully considered? What is the likely relationship between my right hon. Friend's Department and MAFF? Will there be a division of authority, or will there be co-ordination?
    Dr. Clark: When the food standards agency is established, through the House, we will transfer ministerial responsibility for it from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of Health, but we envisage the agency as an autonomous body, able to get the very best scientific advice and to act in a completely independent manner to try to restore public confidence in the quality of the food that the British people eat.
    Mr. Tyler: Has the Minister seen the series of important articles in The Guardian over recent days, about the food revolution, and specifically about genetically modified foodstuffs and organisms? Can he give me a double assurance: first, that the new food standards agency will have as part of its remit consideration of those extremely important issues, as all hon. Members, and the public generally, are concerned about the extent to which we have mechanisms to ensure the long-term safety of such genetic engineering; and, secondly, that before we
    312
    get the new agency someone in Government will take an holistic view of the problems, and will take a responsible attitude and be accountable to the House?
    Dr. Clark: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance on both questions. The committee that I chair realised that it would be some time before we had a food standards agency in place and we were determined to ensure in the interim that we had a sensible arrangement to try to deal with food issues. We have brought together under one chain of command the food scientists and the food experts from the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so an holistic view is, indeed, being taken on such issues. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that issues such as novel foods will fall within the remit of the food standards agency.
    Mr. Hanson: Does the Minister agree that had we had a food standards agency, the BSE problem would not have arisen in the way that it did? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a public inquiry into the BSE crisis would be helpful under the forthcoming freedom of information Act?
    Dr. Clark: I believe that if we had had a freedom of information Act, the House and other experts might have been able to have access to information that might have allowed us to avert the terrible BSE disaster. I hope that, in the near future, we will be in a position to announce an inquiry into the BSE affair.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention that the food standards agency should take the sort of decisions that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took in banning beef on the bone, or would it be an advisory body, leaving the public to form their own conclusions about the facts put before them?
    Dr. Clark: Ministers have to follow the best scientific advice they are given. Their first priority is the protection of the consumer. The food standards agency would be an independent body. It would have access to the finest scientific and other advice. It would make recommendations to the House because, clearly, only the House has the power to legislate should that be needed. It would be a brave Minister who went against the advice of such an august body.

    Freedom of Information
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the extension of the principle of open government. [19601]
    Dr. David Clark: My proposals for a freedom of information Act, set out in the White Paper "Your Right to Know", would transform government in this country from a culture of secrecy to a culture of openness.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to transform this Government from a culture of secrecy to a culture of openness. In that vein. will he consider the role of the Paymaster General in government, now that the hon. Gentleman has been given a role in considering closing the loopholes in offshore trusts when he has numerous offshore trusts and benefits

    313
    from them financially? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that conflicting role, given that the Paymaster General's solicitors have denied that he has control of the Orion trust yet he is able to influence that trust in relation to what shares are bought? Surely, in the interests of open government, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should now require the Paymaster General to make a personal statement to the House so that these matters can be cleared up once and for all.
    Dr. Clark: The Paymaster General abided by all the rules of ministerial conduct. He took advice from Her Majesty's Treasury, which he then followed.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of the freedom of information White Paper "Your Right to Know" is an extremely important event in open government? Does he further agree that that contrasts directly with the attitude of the previous Administration who did not believe in freedom, except for the favoured few—and who certainly did not believe in information because they presided over the most centralised and secretive Government in living memory?
    Dr. Clark: The Government believe that, in a modem democracy, the citizens should have a presumption of access to information held by public bodies unless there are very good reasons why they should not have that access.
    Mrs. Shephard: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, last week we supported his proposals for more open government. In the light of his statement last week, can he explain to the House why, if the previous Government were able to calculate and make public the effect on employment of different levels of a national minimum wage, his Government, committed as he said last week to more open government, refuse to do so?
    Dr. Clark: We debated that issue very fully in the House yesterday evening. Right hon. and hon. Members can raise other points in Committee.
    Fiona Mactaggart: What steps he has taken to make his Department more open. [19602]
    Dr. David Clark: I have published a White Paper on freedom of information which will open up not only my Department but the whole of government and public service. I intend that my Department will set an example on openness. I have therefore undertaken to publish the background material relevant to the formation of the White Paper's proposals.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response and the openness that he has shown by publishing background material on that and on the millennium question. Does he agree that, before his proposals on open government and the reform of quangos take effect, public bodies have the opportunity to be more open and to release more information as a matter of course, as he has shown? What steps can he take to ensure that that happens?
    Dr. Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that public bodies become much more proactive in
    314
    releasing information. We must practise what we preach on open government. When I announced our assessment of how Departments were dealing with the millennium problem, I published all the reports on the work being done, some 1,200 pages. The internet is also a useful tool in lifting the lid on secrecy. There is no reason why more information should not be put on the net. I was pleased that when we published the freedom of information White Paper, we included for the first time a reference to a debate on the consultation documents relating to it, which are running on the internet.
    Mr. Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to open government extend to leak inquiries? Does he believe that the public have a right to know who is being questioned in leak inquiries, particularly when that may involve Ministers and their answers to questions?
    Dr. Clark: There is a long agreed system for inquiries into leaks. That will continue, as it has continued over many years.
    Mr. Llew Smith: When my right hon. Friend launched his freedom of information proposals last week, he said that they would cover the commercial activities of British Nuclear Fuels plc, but a reply from the Minister for Transport in London says that details of future plans to transport plutonium fuel
    "are a commercial matter for BNFL."—[Official Report 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 156.]
    Can my right hon. Friend say who is correct?
    Dr. Clark: We have not excluded BNFL from the scope of the White Paper. Obviously, any information requested from BNFL would be subject to the same substantial harm test as applications to any other body within the scope of the Act.
    Mr. Gorrie: In his good work of trying to create more open government, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making the access of hon. Members to civil servants' information simpler so that we do not have to go through the tortuous route of devising questions, which wastes much more of people's time? In local government, the right of each councillor to access to officials works well. Would he, in a sensible manner, allow that to happen with civil servants?
    Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point, with which I have considerable sympathy. I am well aware that many hon. Members feel that the relationship between them and officials in central government is different from their experience in local government. We can learn much from local government. I accept that there are difficulties on issues such as ministerial responsibilities, but I believe that we should work towards making purely factual information from civil servants much more available to hon. Members. I emphasise that we must bear in mind the fact that civil servants are responsible to Ministers, who act as their spokesmen.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Bayley: If he will make a statement about the most recent recipients of charter mark awards. [19603]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): This has been a very successful year for the charter mark awards scheme, with 365 awards being made—the highest number ever. There were record numbers of applications from virtually all types of public service, including a successful one from the Benefits Agency in York and the North Yorkshire guidance service, which serves York. York is, of course, the original home of the citizens charter idea.
    The charter mark is making a real contribution to improving public services and we intend to build on that success by developing it and making it more effective.
    Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition of the fact that it was a Labour city council that invented the citizens charter. Will he join me in paying tribute to the staff of the Benefits Agency office in York who won a charter mark? Does he agree that staff in Benefits Agency offices are under a lot of pressure, because when people are poor and without money they get desperate and pushy in those offices? If staff at a Benefits Agency office have won an award for excellence in public service for dealing sympathetically and well with people in such circumstances, they deserve praise. Does my hon. Friend agree that their excellent standards deserve to be spread throughout the Benefits Agency so that all people in need get the service that they deserve?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend will be aware that a successful charter mark award ceremony held a fortnight ago last Monday was attended by nearly 100 Members and represented a recognition of the real achievements of those at the sharp end. That is why we are trying to cater for a charter programme that works according to a bottom-up approach to public services rather than opting for the policy of the Conservatives, who tried to impose their will on those who had the extremely difficult job of delivering services in difficult circumstances.

    Freedom of Information
    Mr. Canavan: If he will make a statement about progress with legislation for freedom of information. [19604]
    Mr. Sutcliffe: If he will make a statement on progress towards legislation on freedom of information. [19607]
    Dr. David Clark: The White Paper "Your Right to Know" sets out the Government's clear and radical proposals for freedom of information. We now invite comment and debate. In the light of that, I will publish a draft freedom of information Bill in the new year.
    Mr. Canavan: Although there will be a general welcome for the White Paper, why should there be a blanket exemption for the security and intelligence services and on information relating to the arms trade and the advice that Ministers receive from civil servants and policy advisers? Would it not be better to allow the commissioner or some form of independent panel to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not it is in the public interest to conceal such information?
    Dr. Clark: I believe that we have produced a radical White Paper which will roll back secrecy in public bodies
    316
    across the country. The Campaign for Freedom of Information welcomed the proposals, which it said went further than it expected any British Government would ever go. We must set a new balance between disclosure and confidentiality, which is firmly weighted towards openness; there is, and needs to be, a balance.
    As for the intelligence services, I must tell my hon. Friend that I am determined not to jeopardise national security. That is why that exclusion has been set out so openly and honestly. As regards detailed policy advice to Ministers, we believe that in a modern society the Government need space in which to do their business. That is why we have established a simple harm test in that case, but we have made it clear that factual and background information, which is given to Ministers as they form their opinions, should be made available.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I welcome the radical proposals in the White Paper. Is it not the case that my constituents, and many ordinary people, will benefit from them because they will have the right to access information about themselves?
    Dr. Clark: Yes. In drawing up the White Paper, I tried to look at it not through the eyes of big business or the press but through those of the ordinary citizen. That is why it is clear, simple and straightforward. I want to get the message across loud and clear that the information is for the people, and for them first and foremost. That is why we have sought to minimise the cost and to make the system easier.
    As well as publishing the White Paper in print and on the internet, we are distributing 40,000 copies of a leaflet explaining the main proposals. That leaflet is straightfor-ward and will be available in seven minority languages, in large print, in Braille and on audio cassette.
    Mr. Ruffley: In view of the Minister's commitment to open government, will he tell the House whether the leak inquiry that he appointed last week has personally interviewed the Minister without Portfolio about the disgraceful leaking of the contents of the White Paper earlier last week? It is a simple question—yes or no?
    Dr. Clark: There is a procedure for that sort of inquiry. I have handed it over to my permanent secretary, and it is not the job of a Minister to interfere with an independent neutral civil servant and tell him how to do his job.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he say a little more about the progress of the inquiry? He knows that I would not for a moment doubt his personal integrity, but is he completely satisfied that no ministerial colleague was involved in the leak last week?
    Dr. Clark: My permanent secretary, whom I requested to look into the leak, is doing so, and is conducting a wide range of interviews. He has done that, and is still doing the work. It would be premature for me at this stage to give any disclosure of what conclusion he has come to. It would certainly be wrong for me to interfere in any way with his inquiries.

    Service Delivery (Technology)
    Mr. Rooney: What pilot projects are currently under way to develop the technology used in delivering Government services. [19606]
    Dr. David Clark: There are currently five such pilot projects. Those are the intelligent form project, a joint working programme on touch-screen kiosks, a service electronically delivering geographical data, a rural sub-post office touch-screen kiosk, and an electronic delivery of land and property information in Stirlingshire.
    Mr. Rooney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that I am a technological imbecile, and that many customers of the Government do not have the skills to deal with such technology. What efforts have been made to make it user-friendly?
    Dr. Clark: It is important that we ensure that the technology that we are using is simple, straightforward and varied. That is why we are encouraging pilot schemes throughout the country at both central and local level. When we talk about technology, that includes forms of technology that even my hon. Friend can use to great effect, such as the telephone and the television. Digital television will be introduced next year, and the possibility of interaction through television screens by the use of a console means that many people will find new technology well within their grasp.

    Non-departmental Public Bodies
    Mr. Terry Lewis: What action he has taken to increase the accountability of non—departmental public bodies. [19608]
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The Government are determined to ensure that quangos are made more open and accountable. In the consultation paper "Opening up Quangos", published on 11 November, we set out a number of proposals to do so. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced on the same day the publication of "Executive Non-departmental Public Bodies: 1997 Report", which is a clear signal of the Government's determination to make executive NDPBs more transparent, accessible and accountable to the taxpayer.
    Mr. Lewis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but in the quest for greater transparency, will he ensure that quangos open their doors more to the public? Perhaps a Select Committee would be an appropriate way of overseeing and supervising the quangocracy.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We intend to make the quangos more accountable to Parliament, as well as to the general public. We shall do that through a number of measures, including perhaps extending the remit of Select Committees—that is in the consultation paper. Also, for the ordinary citizen, we want to ensure that each body publishes an annual report and a summary of its meetings, and, where practicable, has open meetings to which the general public are invited.

    Magistrates (County Palatine)
    Mr. Pike: What representations he has received regarding the appointment of magistrates in the County Palatine. [19609]
    Dr. David Clark: During a visit to Lancashire earlier this autumn, I had discussions with the chairmen of the five advisory sub-committees, lieutenancy staff, the chairman and justices chief executive of the magistrates courts committee and the chairman of the Lancaster bench regarding the appointment of magistrates. I have also corresponded with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) regarding the balance of the St. Helens bench.
    Mr. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that magistrates benches in Lancashire are becoming less representative of the areas that they serve? How can we ensure that more Labour people and more working people are appointed as magistrates, so that magistrates benches better reflect the population of the areas that they serve?
    Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. I am concerned that the balance was lost under the previous Government. For example, fewer than 5 per cent. of the local councillors in Burnley and Pendle are Conservatives, whereas there are almost as many Tory magistrates on the local magistrates benches as there are Labour and Liberal Democrat magistrates put together.
    The guidance on the appointment of magistrates is clear. On political affiliations, it says:
    "It is important that justices should be drawn, and should be known to be drawn, from all sections of the community, and should reflect all shades of responsible opinion."
    To try to open up the magistracy, we have raised the age limit on first appointment from 55 to 65. We want to attract many of the people who have taken early retirement, and whose great experience could be well used on the various benches in Lancashire and elsewhere.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept that he, like the Lord Chancellor, can appoint only those people who apply to be magistrates? If Labour Members think that not enough Labour people apply to the justices bench, the remedy lies in their own hands.
    Dr. Clark: We accept the need for a better political balance on magistrates benches throughout the United Kingdom, in compliance with the directions of the law of the land. The situation is out of kilter. The total number of Labour and Liberal Democrat magistrates for the St. Helens bench only equals the number of Conservative magistrates, in spite of the fact that the ratio of local councillors is 44 Labour to one Conservative. The problem is that not enough names are being put forward.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the House would come to order. Conversations are much too noisy, and it is impossible to hear the Minister.

    Service Delivery (Technology)
    Mr. Timms: If he will list the transactions with Government which will be capable of being undertaken electronically in the first stage of his programme. [19610]
    Dr. David Clark: I am aware of the good work being done by the Newham advice arcade, and the work that is being done with the touch-screen kiosk in that area. Much good work is being done at local level throughout the country. I chair the central-local partnership ministerial group on public services and public service delivery, whose aim is to learn as much as possible from those projects. We intend to conduct an audit and an assessment of what is being done to spread the best practice in electronic service across the country.
    Mr. Timms: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is not the problem that little progress was made in this area under the previous Government? We had to depend on local initiatives to make the running in the electronic delivery of services. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the Government have a lot to learn from what has already been achieved at local level?
    Dr. Clark: Generally, and especially in the field of information technology, central Government can learn a great deal from our local government cousins. Last week, I launched an intelligent form for the electronic notification of self-employment. One form filled in electronically will be dispatched instantaneously to three separate Government Departments. That will replace paper access, which at times required up to 14 forms, and which accounted for a vast number of errors, often reaching a rate of 40 per cent.

    Non-departmental Public Bodies
    Mr. Steinberg: What measures he is taking to broaden the social background from which appointments to non-departmental public bodies are made. [19611]
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The Government are committed to attracting a broad range of applicants for public appointments by the use of advertising and by encouraging members of under-represented groups to nominate themselves for the central and departmental lists of candidates.
    Mr. Steinberg: Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government staffed quangos with Tory party members or supporters? For example, in my constituency not one Tory candidate has been elected to any public body, whether to a county council, district council or parish council, yet the quangos contain an unrepresentative number of Tories. Will he ensure that in future there is a social and political mix on quangos so that people in my area can feel confident that they are being properly represented?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Government intend to ensure that appointments are made on the basis of merit, reflecting the skills that are needed and the interests of all stakeholders in our society, rather than on the basis of a partial approach to those appointments.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. McNulty: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. McNulty: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter from Sir Patrick Neill's inquiry to the treasurers of all political parties which asks all parties to supply information from 1992, from home and abroad, on all donations and from whom they come? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Labour party complies with that request? [Interruption.] I shall let the children settle down. Will my right hon. Friend exhort all other party leaders to do the same because if they do not, people will rightly ask, "What have the Tories got to hide?"
    The Prime Minister: We welcome the consultation document that was published today by the committee on party funding. It is obviously important that, to do their job properly, the members of the committee should have all the information that they need. They have written to all parties requesting information about party income going back to 1992. That is entirely right. Speaking for the Labour party, I can say that we shall provide them exactly with the information that they require and I hope that all other parties will do the same.
    Mr. Hague: Speaking for the Conservative party, I can say that we shall provide the Neill committee with all the information that it has asked for. As he raised it, I wonder if the Prime Minister has read the whole of what the Neill committee issued today. On the first page there is a section entitled "Honesty" which states:
    "Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest."
    Since the new code of conduct for Ministers, which was drawn up by the Prime Minister, states that Ministers should remain entirely detached from Government decisions that could affect their private interests, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Paymaster General is entirely detached from decisions that could affect his private interests?
    The Prime Minister: First, if I may, I should like to unite the House by offering our heartiest congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on the celebration on Friday of his wedding. On behalf of us all, I wish him and his fiancée a very happy married life thereafter. Now I shall turn to his question. The answer quite simply is yes: I am satisfied of that.
    Mr. Hague: On the first part of his answer, I thank the Prime Minister for his kind words. They give me the opportunity to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House who have been so kind to my fiancée and to me. I am delighted that you, Madam Speaker, will be joining

    321
    us at our wedding. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I hope that you will not be required to call for order on that occasion. The Prime Minister will forgive me for suggesting that just as his honeymoon is coming to an end mine is about to begin.
    On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, with which I was not quite so happy, normal hostilities will now resume. Treasury officials have admitted that the Paymaster General has been working on the law relating to offshore trusts. The Paymaster General has £12 million in offshore trusts. The Paymaster General has admitted to having influence over those trusts. By what twist of logic has the Prime Minister come to be satisfied that the Paymaster General is entirely detached from Government decisions on these matters?
    The Prime Minister: First—not to carry on the discussion too long—the marriage that the Labour party enjoyed with the electorate is one that we intend to continue at the next election.
    In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has followed the advice of the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and has acted at all times in line with the ministerial code.
    Mr. Hague: I have no doubt that advice has been taken, but look what the Paymaster General himself has said. He told journalists on Saturday that he had been working on policy which affected his own financial interests—he even told journalists that he could show them internal Treasury documents about it, which is an interesting admission in itself. That is what he said. How can that be squared with being entirely detached from Government decisions that affect him? Is it not time that the Paymaster General did the honourable thing and resigned?
    The Prime Minister: No is the answer to that. There is a clear ministerial code and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has followed that ministerial code. I think that it is good that we have people who are highly successful business people and who have come to work for the Government. My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job for the country, without even taking a ministerial salary.
    Mr. Hague: I think that that is good, but the Paymaster General is not an entrepreneur who has just been tempted into the Government; he has been a Labour Member of Parliament for 21 years. We have now established that the Prime Minister, almost alone among people who have considered these matters, does not think that there is a conflict of interest. Does he at least agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that the Paymaster General had said one thing and done another? If a conflict of interest is not a resigning matter in this Government, is gross hypocrisy a resigning matter in this Government?
    The Prime Minister: No, that is not correct—[Interruption.] That is not correct, either in relation to what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is supposed to have said, or in relation to the point at issue.
    Mr. Hague: What we have here is a Paymaster General who has put a new tax on middle-income savers, but has millions of pounds in an offshore tax haven; who has denied influencing his trust, but then admitted doing so; and who has claimed no conflict of interest, but has then
    322
    admitted working on offshore tax policy. Are not taxpayers throughout the country going to be appalled if he remains in office as Paymaster General, collecting their taxes? Is it not time, not only for him to become entirely detached from ministerial consideration of his own interests, but for him to become entirely detached from ministerial office itself?
    The Prime Minister: The short answer to that is no. I do not accept that at all. In case anyone is interested in the facts, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has not avoided UK tax—he has paid probably more UK tax than either me or the Leader of the Opposition, as a matter of fact. He is a highly successful business man, he has contributed a lot to public life and he is working without a ministerial salary. I personally think that it would be very unfortunate if people who are successful in business were put off or discouraged from joining a Government and working in the public interest. I do not intend to have people so discouraged.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: One of the many election promises that have been delivered by the Government is to have a referendum which has paved the way for a national assembly for Wales. In conformity with the spirit of Christmas and in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister bring tidings of comfort and joy to the people of Swansea by selecting Swansea guildhall as the site for the new Welsh Assembly, which is cost effective, which is an all-Wales solution, and which will be received enthusiastically by the people of Swansea and south-west Wales?
    The Prime Minister: I do not want to promise my hon. Friend a bleak midwinter, but, quite honestly, I have to say that there is a decision to be taken, a review is under way as to the best site for the assembly and it is probably sensible that I wait for the outcome of that review.
    Mr. Ashdown: In any end-of-year report on the Government, "Made good progress in some areas that they promised they would", could be a fair judgment; but, "Must do better next year", would be the right judgment in other areas. In which areas does the Prime Minister think that the Government can and must do better next year?
    The Prime Minister: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have put through a Bill to cut class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-olds, which we promised to do; we have put in place the £1.3 billion schools building programme, which we promised to do; we have provided extra money for the national health service over and above what we promised to do; we have initiated a £3.5 billion welfare-to-work programme; we have put through a Bill for the removal of handguns; we have signed the land mines treaty; we have held referendums in Scotland and Wales; we have provided £50 for the poorest pensioners; we have reduced VAT on fuel; and just today we have announced better treatment for cervical cancer screening and help for the homeless. There is lots of good news.
    Can we do more next year? Yes, of course we can, especially on waiting lists and class sizes. We will do more. We were not elected for just seven months; we were

    323
    elected for longer than that. We will do more and we can achieve more. As for the right hon. Gentleman's end-of-year report—[Interruption.] Well, it is Christmas.
    Mr. Ashdown: Indeed, and I do not want to break the spirit of Christmas. I fully understand the mess that the Prime Minister was left by the previous Government. I also fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot do everything at once. However, I remind him of his early pledges to cut waiting lists—they are now at record levels and rising; to reduce class sizes—they are now at a seven-year high and rising; and to increase the number of police on the beat—now 300 fewer than when the right hon. Gentleman was elected.
    If, by the time of the next Budget, there are still no improvements in delivering those early pledges, will the Prime Minister at least consider that what may be wrong is not so much his policies, as his decision to enact the spending cuts of the Government whom Labour replaced?
    The Prime Minister: I accept, of course, that there is more to do on waiting lists and class sizes. That is precisely what I said earlier and it is why extra money is going to those areas next year. We will put in the extra investment, and along with that will come the reform programme to improve both the health service and schools. However, that will be done against the background of a need to keep a tight rein on public resources. That is right, sensible and prudent. It is best for the long-term future of the country.
    Since the election, we have taken difficult decisions on interest rates and public finances, but they are right for the long term. However difficult they may be in the short term, it is right that we put in place the stability that will guarantee investment and security for our people long term. That is what we were elected to do.
    Mr. Bill Michie: May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for their far-sighted and historic decision to site the National Sports Institute in Sheffield? I am sure that it will be a tremendous boost to athletes throughout the United Kingdom and will be a great success.
    On a different but just as important a point, will my right hon. Friend give the necessary support to the British Aerospace Airbus 340–500/600 programmes, to ensure that United Kingdom industry is working on a level playing field with our European partners?
    The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's first point, of course we are delighted that the Sheffield bid was successful. Our aim is to increase the excellence in British sport. In fact, there were superb bids all round from many parts of the country, but obviously the institute can be sited in only one of them.
    On my hon. Friend's point about launch aid and British Aerospace, we strongly support the Airbus project; we always have. Obviously, the launch aid application has to be judged on the same criteria as everything else. It is under active consideration and as soon as we have the results we will publish them.
    Mr. Salmond: Can the Prime Minister explain to my constituents why four Peterhead families were left, in their bereavement, to raise the funds required to raise the
    324
    fishing boat Sapphire, return it to Peterhead and allow their loved ones to have family funerals? Does the Prime Minister detect no sense of public obligation or duty in such matters? If he does, can he explain why no Minister, Government Department or agency lifted a finger to help those families in that extreme position?
    The Prime Minister: First, I should say that there were Ministers and officials who were in close touch with people throughout the course of this matter. A decision had to be taken. They considered very carefully the report that was commissioned, but they came to the view that the best decision was to leave the situation as it was. I understand the distress that that caused many of the families and it was a difficult decision, but we took it genuinely believing that it was in the best interests of everyone.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: May I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on their interim policies on the coal industry, but does he agree that this country needs a national integrated energy and fuel policy because, if we leave it to the laissez-faire market, we will rue the day—we will lose the independence that we have in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I say to my hon. Friend, who has long experience in the mining industry, that it is important that we address our energy needs on a long-term basis. Obviously, I am pleased that the generators and RJB Mining have come to an agreement for the short term. That has been done, incidentally, without any Government subsidy being paid at all—it is important to emphasise that. However, we need to use this period to conduct a proper review of what the long-term energy needs of the country are. All I would say is that the review has to be based on long-term energy needs, but that must not become an excuse for not having a highly competitive industry at the same time. Putting those two things together will be the purpose of the review that we are conducting.
    Mr. Green: The Prime Minister has already made it clear this afternoon that he sympathises with the Paymaster General's plaintive question, "What have I done wrong?" Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that a Minister who one weekend issues a statement through his solicitors saying that he has no influence over a trust, and within seven days admits that, on two separate occasions, he directly influenced the actions of that trust, is not fit to command public confidence? Why is the Prime Minister clinging to that Minister, who is doing nothing but sullying the reputation of his Government?
    The Prime Minister: As I said earlier to the Leader of the Opposition, I simply do not agree with that. Indeed, as has been accepted by Conservative Members throughout, there is not even the allegation that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has done something improper. Therefore, the answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition is the same answer that I give to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Wareing: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the British people were asked to choose between spending more money on building the

    325
    millennium dome or on providing proper benefits for disabled people and to provide for the windchill factor in severe weather payments, the British people would choose the latter?
    The Prime Minister: First, in relation to the windchill payments, the money that has been announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the pre-Budget statement is far greater than anything that could possibly be given through taking the windchill factor into account, where the sums of money involved are extremely small. From recollection, we acted on the advisory body's view that that was not the right way in which to help people who face difficulty with their heating bills. Secondly, in respect of the millennium experience, I simply ask him to study carefully today's report from the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which endorses the Government's decision to proceed with the dome and describes it as both
    "magnificent in conception and likely to be breathtaking in execution".
    It was the right decision to proceed with that. The previous Government began the process. We have taken it on. It is right. These things are always difficult, but, in 2000, people will see that the right decision has been taken.
    Mr. Flight: Does the Prime Minister regret the lack of consideration given to the proposals for individual savings accounts and the way they were handled? Does he realise the fierce resentment that he has aroused in middle England, not only because the playing field has been changed but because people in middle England who have completed their tax planning will be hit with a £50,000 limit? [Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but middle England's fury towards the Government is considerable. Does the Prime Minister realise that it will be impossible to regulate individual savings accounts because they fall into three different areas and, as all regulators will tell him, there cannot be three different financial products in one? Does the Prime Minister further realise that ISAs offer nothing to the lower income groups that was not available through personal equity plans and tax-efficient special savings accounts? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hurry up."] Will the Government reconsider their proposals and the Minister responsible for them?
    The Prime Minister: First, the proposals amount to £50,000 worth of tax-free saving for an individual, and £100,000 for a couple. These are quite significant sums of money. First, just to correct the hon. Gentleman on two points, that is the amount of money that people can pay into the fund; it is not necessarily the value of the fund, which can rise to far more than that. Secondly, the proposals are not retrospective, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    As for the lower income groups, it is estimated that around 6 million more people could get the chance to save. The hon. Gentleman talked as though ISAs were a bad deal for TESSA holders. There are 4.5 million TESSA holders, but the limit on TESSAs is £9,000 and the money has to be tied up for a considerable period. Under our proposals, the sum can rise to £50,000 and the
    326
    money can be withdrawn at will. There is also an ability to put cash in, too. I suggest that that is rather a good deal for low-income savers.
    Mr. McAllion: On the eve of the publication of the Scotland Bill, I warmly welcome the imminent return of Scotland's Parliament and, with it, political decision making, to Scotland. In that devolutionary spirit, will my right hon. Friend confirm that control over the £450 million tax-raising power will be vested in the Scottish Parliament, and in the Scottish Parliament alone? Will he also confirm that, despite a certain rival claim to sovereignty, we on this side of the House, as good democrats and even better socialists, acknowledge that ultimately sovereignty can rest in only one place—with the people?
    The Prime Minister: Of course sovereignty does rest with the people, which is why we gave them the chance to vote in a referendum in Scotland, which personally I always thought was a good idea. As for the Bill that is to be published tomorrow, it will set out the correct position in relation to the tax-varying powers and everything else. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Parliament will come about and that, as a result, we will get a better, more decentralised constitution fit for the 21st century.
    Mr. Gibb: In a written answer, the Chancellor referred to statements issued by the Paymaster General. To one such statement, the Paymaster General attached a copy of his solicitor's letter to The Observer. It stated that the trustees of the Orion trust were not influenced by the Paymaster General. Given that it is now abundantly clear that the Paymaster General does influence the trustees of the Orion trust, has not the Chancellor unintentionally misled the House, and does the Prime Minister agree that the Chancellor is duty bound to come to the House to put the record straight?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree on any count. As I pointed out earlier, it is simply incorrect to say that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General sought to avoid UK tax. He has not, so the basis of the allegation that is being made is completely and totally wrong. It has been wrong from the beginning and remains wrong now.
    Kali Mountford: My right hon. Friend will not be aware that my doctor has told me that many parts of my constituency are practically under quarantine because of a dreadful flu virus that often causes problems in terms of NHS beds. Is not the best Christmas present that the NHS could have had the injection of money that it has received, so that this winter we will not have the crisis that we experienced every year under the previous Government?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing out what those extra resources—an extra £300 million over and above what was promised by the previous Government—will do for the national health service. Yesterday, in a hospital, I saw for myself how £270,000 is being used to bridge the gap between social services and hospital treatment of the elderly, which will relieve some of the pressure on beds. Precisely that type of measure can be introduced because of the extra money. If a problem remains in the national health service, we will—over time, and in the manner that we have set

    327
    out—get it cured. We will be reversing the appalling destructive legacy that we were left by the previous Conservative Government.
    Mr. Whittingdale: The Prime Minister has still not answered the question. Is he aware that the statement in the letter of the Paymaster General's lawyers that he has no influence in any way over the decisions of the Orion trust has now been clearly shown to be untrue? Does he therefore accept that the Paymaster General's credibility is destroyed, and that he should now resign?
    The Prime Minister: No, as I have already said, I do not accept that. The question may be the Tory briefing of the day, but I have already set out the position absolutely clearly. My hon. Friend has followed the advice that he was given by the Treasury and is in the ministerial code. He has not avoided United Kingdom tax. That is the position.
    Mr. Cranston: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on their agenda on constitutional change, and particularly on the White Paper on freedom of information? Does he agree that, in five years' time, the British people will say, "Yes, this is another matter on which a Labour Government have made a difference—in this case, in favour of openness and accountability"?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—[Interruption.] It is remarkable that, whenever someone mentions the health service or raises other issues that concern the people of this country, Opposition Members have absolutely nothing to say. My hon. Friend is quite right on his point about freedom of information.
    Mr. Prior: May I ask the Prime Minister, for the third time, to answer the question? On 8 December, the Paymaster General issued a statement—which was confirmed, on 12 December, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that he did not in any way influence the trustees of the Orion trust. Over the weekend, the Paymaster General reversed that statement. Should the Paymaster General not now ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he might come to the House to clarify the position?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is no.
    Mrs. Ellman: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Economic and Social Research Council is recommending a change in the categorisation of British society, to include, for the very first time, "the underclass" as an official category? Does he think that that is not only a very suitable epitaph for 18 years of Tory rule, but a measure of the enormity of the task facing the new Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: That is correct, of course—[Interruption.] Opposition Members shout boring, but I do not think that it is boring to try to tackle some of the social problems that we have in this country. The essence of what we are doing is providing—next year, through our £3.5 billion programme—real opportunity for our young people and the long-term unemployed, but demanding responsibility in return. As has been shown again today,
    328
    in an initiative on those who are sleeping rough in the streets of London, it is possible to take action if the political will is there to do it. It was not there under the previous Government—that was to their shame—but it is with this Government.
    Mr. Walter: Perhaps I can provide a little relief to the Prime Minister and not ask him about the opinions of the permanent secretary or legal advice to the Paymaster General. I ask instead for his view on whether it is not both incompatible and hypocritical for a Minister to propose a tax shelter for ordinary citizens that is limited to £50,000 while simultaneously having for himself a tax shelter of £12 million?
    The Prime Minister: No, for the very reason that I have just given, which is that my hon. Friend has not avoided United Kingdom tax, has followed the ministerial code completely and has acted in accordance with the advice that he was given.
    Mr. George Turner: The whole House will recall that, as a matter of policy, the Conservative party in government underplayed consistently the dangers of BSE. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the consistency of the Leader of the Opposition in continuing that policy? Does he agree that Government lotteries should be confined to the newsagent and not extended to the butcher's shop?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are dealing with the £4 billion legacy of the chaos and incompetence that the previous Government engendered. The last people from whom we will take lessons on how to deal with the crisis are members of the party that created it.
    Mr. Loughton: I really do want to help the Prime Minister. Let us pretend for a moment that the Paymaster General is a model taxpayer. Let us cast aside all the questions about trustees and the Channel Islands. Does he agree that it would be better if the Paymaster General, any Labour Member or any member of the British public simply held their assets and their money in this country—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Loughton: Would it not be better if the Paymaster General—if he has nothing to hide—held all his assets in this country, fully subject to the rigours of the Inland Revenue?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to help, and I think that he did. This little exhibition at Question Time demonstrates the cheek of that lot there. We remember their record throughout the past few years. As we are talking about foreign money, perhaps we could find out how much foreign money they got in funds for their political party. For them to shield themselves in the robes of financial probity is a joke. It is seen and regarded as a joke. They have no credibility whatever.

BILL PRESENTED
  SCOTLAND
  Mr. Secretary Dewar, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. Secretary Robertson, Secretary Harriet Harman, Mr. Secretary Davies and Mr. Henry McLeish presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and Administration and other changes in the government of Scotland; to provide for changes in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies; to provide for the variation of the basic rate of income tax in relation to income of Scottish taxpayers in accordance with a resolution of the Scottish Parliament; to amend the law about parliamentary constituencies in Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 104].

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to Prime Minister's questions. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) asked a lengthy question about personal equity plans and individual savings accounts. However, the Register of Members' Interests declares that he is deputy chairman of Guinness Flight Hambro Asset Management Ltd. It lists associate companies such as Guinness Flight Global Strategy Fund Ltd., among others. He has clearly been involved in advocacy on behalf of those bodies, because PEPs and ISAs are in direct opposition to their interests.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Member and the House are aware, no Member has to declare an interest during Question Time. If he has some point to make—it seems that he has—he should approach the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards about the matters.
Mr. James Paice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, over the past two days, many hundreds, if not many thousands, of fanners from all over the United Kingdom have been making representations in the House of Commons about the severe distress they face. In the light of the fact that the European Council of Agriculture Ministers has met in the past two days, have you had any request from the Minister of Agriculture, or anybody else in the Ministry of Agriculture, for a statement to explain what they are going to do to help farmers to get out of their severe problems?
Madam Speaker: I believe that the House can expect a statement from the Minister of Agriculture before we rise for the Christmas recess.
Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Hon. Members may not be obliged to declare interests at Question Time, but I believe that they are obliged to do so before they speak in a debate. Last night, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), to whom I have given notice of my point of order, made a winding-up speech on the National Minimum Wage Bill, but failed to declare that he is a director in the remunerated employment of Tamaris plc and has shares in Quality Care Homes, both of which are companies that pay £3 or a little less an hour. Although asked to do so, he made no reference to that interest.
Under the resolution of the House of 6 November 1995, advocacy and failure to declare an interest in a person or body from which an hon. Member may benefit is against the rules of the House. I must ask you, Madam Speaker, to investigate this matter. Despite an invitation last night to declare an interest, there was a flagrant, arrogant refusal to accept. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks has a direct financial interest in rejecting the minimum wage Bill, and keeping wages as low as possible.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I remind the House that all hon. Members who have a financial interest or any interest at all in the subject under debate are required when speaking in the House to declare

331
that interest—and at the very beginning of their speech, not at any part of the way through. You may care, Mr. Macshane, to report the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I do not want to prolong points of order, which seem to be spurred on once we get to this point on a Wednesday. I call Mr. Winnick.
Mr. David Winnick: You said, Madam Speaker, as we know, that it is not necessary to declare an interest during Question Time. Does not that undermine declaration of interest during debate? After all, Question Time is a very important feature of the House. If an hon. Member has a declared interest, surely he or she may get out of declaring it by raising the matter during Question Time.
The hon. Member named by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has a duty to explain the matter in the House. Otherwise, it could be said that he has concealed a very important interest. If he is an honourable Member, as I am sure he is, he will want to justify, or try to justify, what he has done.
Madam Speaker: The House has never required any Member to declare an interest during Question Time. I can well imagine—as I am sure the House can—that, if Members had to declare interests at Prime Minister's Question Time and other Question Times, we would not get past Questions 3 or 4. I know that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is making a very serious point—[Interruption.] Please let me finish.
332
The hon. Member may wish to pursue the point. If he does, perhaps he will put it to the Procedure Committee, which would consider it.
Mr. Barnes: On another point of order, Madam Speaker. The point that I am attempting to make may have been missed. The problem is not about an hon. Member needing to declare an interest when asking a question. It is a question of advocacy. Interests are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. The matter is for you, because you may stop an hon. Member proceeding if advocacy is being engaged in.
Madam Speaker: I do not enforce the regulation. It is for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to carry out such duties and for any hon. Member—in this case Mr. Barnes—to inform the Commissioner of the information he has. It is not for the Chair.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a totally different point of order, Madam Speaker. Incidentally, if I had to declare an interest every time, I would never get to the question.
When I first entered the House, before you were Speaker, your predecessor used to refer to tedious and repetitive speeches, as you have yourself. It has always been a rule of the House that hon. Members should not indulge in such speeches. Should not the question writers for the Opposition take time over Christmas to practise some variations on a theme, like Paganini, and return with a new theme of questions for next year?
Madam Speaker: That might be a helpful suggestion for some of the tedious and repetitive questions that I see on the Order Paper from hon. Members on the Government side as well. I read the Order Paper thoroughly every day.

Energy Efficiency (Information)
3.40 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the gathering and provision of information on the energy efficiency of homes.
The Bill seeks to amend the 1994 building regulations to improve consumer information and save the environment. It is about thinking globally and acting locally. The objective is to give consumers good information so that they can buy or rent more energy-efficient homes, which would reduce fuel bills and emissions of gases, including carbon dioxide. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who led the British delegation last week in Kyoto, said:
"Unless we act now"—
on the greenhouse gases that cause global warming—
"we shall be condemning our children to a world of drought and crop failures, rising seas, mass migration and spreading disease."—[Official Report, 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 129.]
The Bill would make a contribution to that important work.
The practice of energy-rating houses, especially new houses, began some years ago. The intention was to show how energy-efficient a house was, so that a potential purchaser or tenant could judge one property against another on its energy use, and therefore fuel bills. Houses were given a rating for energy efficiency, but there were several unofficial rating systems, which were run by various energy consultants.
In 1992, the Environment Select Committee, in its fourth report, recommended that the Government sought to establish one national home energy rating scheme and actively promote it in the market. The Government have devised the standard assessment procedure, or SAP rating, which rated houses from 1, or highly energy-inefficient, to 100, or highly energy-efficient. To advance the cause of energy efficiency, the idea was incorporated into the 1994 building regulations, under which builders were required to produce an SAP rating for all new houses and for conversions which constituted a material change of use under planning law. The intention was to ensure one standard rating and to make it available so that purchasers had information on the energy efficiency of a house before buying or renting.
However, the scheme has not worked properly. If we can get it to work properly, energy rating could make an important contribution to getting everyone to think about energy conservation and efficiency. It is a win-win policy. The impact of energy conservation on fuel poverty and the environment could be substantial.
The Energy Saving Trust has calculated that energy conservation measures could save nearly 20 per cent. of domestic energy consumption in the UK by 2010. For some households, that would mean savings of up to £250 every year on their fuel bills, and it would save the UK as a whole some £6 billion. Such measures would also cut the domestic sector's carbon dioxide emissions by 14 per cent. However, to achieve those figures, every opportunity to improve energy efficiency must be taken.
The Bill would strengthen the building regulations to encourage energy efficiency, and would address the two shortcomings in the 1994 regulations. First, the requirement for quality control was not strict enough; secondly, there was no requirement to inform prospective purchasers or tenants of a house's SAP rating.
334
The effect of the first shortcoming has been expertly summed up by Professor Jake Chapman:
"The current situation is that many insulation manufacturers, boiler makers, heating designers and architects offer free SAP ratings to builders based on free and unchecked software. There is no quality control over the software or the data entered into the programmes. Most people using the system have not read the Government's published guidance notes that explain the conventions for assessing properties. As a result, building control officers do not have any confidence in the SAP rating being debated and have no reason to pursue the matter further."
The effect of the second shortcoming is that purchasers and tenants are often not told of the SAP rating. Professor Chapman added:
"Many builders would be ashamed if the low SAP ratings of their properties were publicised to customers. Currently the average SAP rating for new private houses is about 70. This compares with an average of 85 to 90 for housing association properties. This difference is created at very little additional cost."
The additional costs at the time of building have been estimated at a mere £250 per dwelling, yet the impact on fuel bills can be substantial. Opportunities are being missed.
The additional costs of extra insulation and better boilers or controls are very low when a home is first built. Installing smaller insulation is cost-effective only if it is built in from the start. This is much more important for new houses, as new housing sets the standards of expectation for the rest of the market. If builders promoted their new homes as energy-efficient, it would have a ripple effect throughout the housing market.
My Bill deals with the shortcomings in the 1994 regulations. It will require tougher control of the issuing of SAP ratings, and will require those ratings to be stated in all promotional material relating to the sale or letting of a property. That will enable people to see how energy-efficient their prospective home is, and will be a further force towards greater energy efficiency.
The Bill will cost central and local government nothing, and will contribute to reducing fuel bills. It will help people to live in warmer homes, which, on a cold day like today, will be appreciated by everybody. It will help reduce greenhouse and other gases. This short Bill will follow the excellent work done on the world agenda by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in Kyoto. It is good for purses and good for the planet, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Clive Efford, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Ms Tess Kingham, Mr. David Chaytor, Angela Smith, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Tony Colman and Ms Debra Shipley.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY (INFORMATION)
Ms Julia Drown accordingly presented a Bill to improve the gathering and provision of information on the energy efficiency of homes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 105].

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1997.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.

Supreme Court (Offices) Act 1997.

Scottish Agricultural College Order Confirmation Act 1997.

Fisheries
[Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 8371/96 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources; European Community Document No. 7055/97 relating to the total allowable catches for 1997; European Community Document No. 9893/97 relating to the multi-annual guidance programmes for fishing fleets at the end of 1996.]
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
3.48 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1997 relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1998 and certain conditions under which they may be fished: and supports the Government's intentions to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen based on sustainable fisheries management, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised.
The House usually has a debate on fisheries late in December, in advance of the setting of the total allowable catch and quotas for the coming year. Although I have participated in such debates for eight years, this is my fist time speaking from the Government Front Bench. Through that participation over the years, I know how important this debate is to hon. Members from fishing communities, and I am pleased that we are maintaining the tradition this year, with the opportunity not only to debate the forthcoming decisions of the Fisheries Council later this week but to review other important aspects of fisheries policy.
It is right, I believe, to open the debate by recalling the exceptional nature of the fishing industry and the demands that it places on those who go to sea. Catching fish to meet the needs of consumers is a hazardous and unpredictable business; and it is a business that, sadly, results all too often in loss of life. Most recently, we have to recall the sad loss of the Margaretha Maria and the Sapphire, and the tragic loss of their crews.
All those who follow these debates regularly will know the difficulties relating to fisheries policy in this country. Our inheritance as a new Government has not been an easy one. Little progress had been made on meeting multi-annual guidance programme IV targets, and we were faced with the debacle of quota hoppers and the totally unrealistic expectations raised by policies designed not to deal with real problems of over-capacity and sustainability but to pander to the prejudices of Euro-sceptics in the Conservative party, no matter what damage that approach did to the long-term interests of the fishing industry. I appreciate the fact that there are honourable exceptions among Conservative Members to that remark.
The Government have been determined to adopt realistic and workable policies in the fisheries sector, and not to duck tough decisions. We made it clear from the start that we would apply the rules of the common fisheries policy properly, and that we would look to the Commission and other member states to do likewise. Our approach to the CFP has not been uncritical, but it has been realistic.
Mr. Norman A. Godman: As my hon. Friend knows, I am an honorary president of

337
the Clyde Fishermen's Association—I do not get anything for that—and serious concerns have been expressed to us both about the immense pressures on the west coast scallop fishery. It is not a pressure stock. I hope that he will say something to allay the serious but entirely legitimate concerns of the Clyde fishermen.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right: I am well aware of his long involvement in the fishing industry. He has spoken in all the debates that I have attended. I am aware of the matter he raises about the scallop industry. The issue is not covered in the total allowable catches and quotas in the Council, and part of it comes under our inshore regulations, but we are considering it. If my hon. Friend wants to raise the matter with me formally on behalf of his constituents, I will be only too pleased to consider it, and to give him a direct response.
Mr. William Cash: The Minister may remember the condemnation by the Select Committee on European Legislation, on which I serve, of the last round of the Fisheries Council. The Committee said:
"There is no doubt that the United Kingdom has done badly out of the decision taken at the Fisheries Council."
Since then, we have had to issue another report, on 10 December, in which there is again severe criticism of the Government for not providing information about what is really going on with the massive cuts that are proposed, which I will not set out. The report said:
"We believe it would have been helpful to the House if information of the kind set out in World fish Report had been included".
Can we assume that we will have a proper, candid, open and transparent description of the real position in today's debate? Does the Minister accept that such condemnation from a Select Committee on which the Government have a majority speaks for itself?
Mr. Morley: I accept that there have been problems in getting information and documents to Committees. We have made representations about that delay to the Commission. We will be happy to consider suggestions on how information is presented, and if the Select Committee wants to make recommendations to the Government, we will respond appropriately.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Would it be useful if, when Members of the European Parliament got their papers from the Commission, members of the European Legislation Select Committee, on which I serve, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), could get them at the same time, with the Commission's comments? At present, we get only the Government's comments, and do not know what the Commission says.
Mr. Morley: That would seem a reasonable suggestion, and it may be worth looking at. There have been delays in obtaining information for scrutiny, and that is not acceptable. I want to make that clear to hon. Members.
The previous Administration left the issue of quota hoppers suspended and in a totally unworkable state. Quota hoppers—the foreign ownership of UK-flagged fishing vessels and the consequent rights for foreign interests to use UK quotas—is a problem which has exercised the industry. The previous Administration
338
claimed that that problem could be resolved by adding a protocol to the treaty. That was a bogus claim. They ignored the fact that not a single member state of the European Union supported the proposal they had made for such a treaty change. Not even the member states that were suffering similar problems and were sympathetic supported a treaty change at the intergovernmental conference.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley: I shall be happy to give way when I have finished this point.
Having examined the situation and discovered the negotiating realities that we had inherited, we secured instead an understanding with the European Commission in the form of an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission. This gave an authoritative view as to the measures we could apply to secure a firm economic link between the vessels using UK quotas and the interests and communities dependent on fisheries.
Mr. Jack: Will the Minister acknowledge that the Barber judgment, which was a protocol on the Maastricht treaty, was an example in which not all member states agreed with our view, but in which we did get our way—to the benefit of the United Kingdom and pension holders?
Mr. Morley: The fact remains that getting a protocol or an amendment of that kind requires a unanimous decision in this case. The prospect of getting a unanimous decision from countries such as Spain and the Netherlands on issues directly against their interests is not realistic. To get a change in a protocol, there has to be some support. There was no support whatsoever for that change from any other country. It was not a realistic option.
Mr. John Townend: Is it not a fact that that would have been an option if we had been prepared to go to the wire and say, "Unless you agree to this, we will veto the whole treaty"? Amsterdam would have fallen. That would not have been allowed to happen under any circumstances. That is the card that the Government had to play, but they lost their will and did not play it.
Mr. Morley: I am not convinced that that was an option. We have been through all this before over beef. The previous Government had a policy of non-co-operation. They said that if they ran that policy, the beef ban would be lifted. It was a failure. It did enormous damage to our relationship with Europe and it damaged our industries, not least the fishing industry, and went a great deal wider than that. Adopting such a policy in this case would have been equally damaging. Those who are opposed to the concept of the European Union would support such a move, but it was not a realistic option.
Mr. John Hayes rose—
Mr. Morley: If hon. Members will forgive me, I must make some progress.

339
Detailed proposals have been put to the fishing industry as to how the economic link in relation to licences can be operated. We have had valuable feedback, which is helpful in developing our ideas. We expect to reach a final view on the measures to be implemented very shortly, taking account of the advice of the European Commission.
It is only fair to say that the views coming from different parts of the industry are diverse, and that the enthusiasm for stringent measures has not been uniformly expressed even by some well-established representatives of the UK fishing industry. Those who think that the proposed conditions on licences would count for little may be surprised at some of the reactions to this proposal. That is something we shall need to take into account in deciding on the measures to be applied.
I turn to the Commission's proposals for the total allowable catches and quotas to apply in 1998. I regret that, as in previous years, they have appeared very late in the day, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). That makes it difficult for us, and for all member states, to prepare for important decisions in the December Council. I have taken the matter up with the Fisheries Commissioner. To allow the fullest possible parliamentary scrutiny and consultation, we made available papers containing as much detail as possible before the Commission's proposals were published. I accept that there is room for improvement, and we will press for that.
The proposals cover some 120 different TACs. There is an increase on previous years, because six new TACs in the North sea—sand eels, monkfish, megrim, turbot, mixed flatfish and skates and rays—are proposed. The adoption of the new TACs is welcome. They will help to conserve stocks and prevent increased fishing efforts from being introduced by countries that have not traditionally fished for them.
I also welcome the fact that, for the first time, a TAC is to be set for sand eels. Hon. Members know of the Government's concern about the impact of industrial fishing. Although we think that the proposed TAC on sand eels is far too high, it presents us with the opportunity to argue for catch limitations on industrial fisheries.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am sure that the House is with the Minister in welcoming the new TACs, but do not the Government expect producer organisations to try to administer them from 1 January? For the first time, some of those are mixed TACs. Some are listed under the Norwegian "other" category. Given that they are dealing with track records that are five or six years out of date, how are producer organisations expected to cope with the administration of the new TACs? Will the Government consider undertaking their administration at least for the first year, to allow the producer organisations to sort things out in an orderly way?
Mr. Morley: I accept the criticism that the new TACs were announced at short notice and that the producer organisations have not had time to consider them. I would have to reflect carefully on the Government administering the TACs. They are much better administered by producer organisations. While I appreciate their problems, I hope
340
that they will be able to resolve them. If there are difficulties, I am sure that they will make representations to the Ministry in the normal way.
Mr. Jack: Before we leave the difficult subject of administration and availability of information, can the Minister assure us that he will lodge a minute with the Council tomorrow, laying down the requirements in clear terms, so that the problem he described at the start of his speech does not happen again next year?
Mr. Morley: I would be more than pleased if, by lodging a minute, I could ensure that such things did not happen again next year. I am willing to take all appropriate measures to draw this unsatisfactory situation to the attention of the Commission. I will consider the matter.
For the remaining stocks, the Commission proposes increases or the status quo for some, and cuts for others. The year-on-year changes are based on the advice of the fisheries scientists of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. It is particularly important that the scientists are developing a precautionary approach in their advice. Few would argue against a prudent and cautious approach to fish stock management.
We must take seriously the scientists' assessment of the state of stocks. At the same time, it is important that the scientists should draw on the day-to-day practical experience of the fishing industry in making their assessments. An effective dialogue between fisheries scientists and fishermen is vital if the scientific advice is to be valued and accepted by the industry.
A good example of the relationship working well is the responsible approach that the industry has taken to the TAC for North sea cod. That is an important stock, which must be protected. The scientists advise that it would be possible to raise the TAC to 150,000 tonnes in 1998 and still increase the spawning stock biomass to within safe biological limits. However, to speed the rebuilding of the stock, the Government have pressed, with the support of the industry, for the TAC to be limited to 140,000 tonnes.
I am glad to report that that figure has now been agreed in the annual consultations between the Community and Norway over the management of this and other North sea stocks. It is an excellent example of joint industry-Government co-operation in ensuring sustainability.
Naturally, however, fishermen are concerned about some of the cuts proposed by the Commission. I met leaders of the UK industry this morning. We had a full discussion, so that I was able to hear their concerns and priorities. I was able to assure them that, at the Fisheries Council tomorrow, we will seek increases in TACs to reflect their concerns where that is compatible with the conservation of the stocks. But I emphasised that our approach has to be responsible if stocks are to recover from some of the current low levels.
I am pleased that, in addition to developing the dialogue with fisheries scientists on the state of the stocks, the British fishing industry has co-operated closely with fisheries departments and scientists in the lengthy and complicated negotiations on new technical conservation measures. Those measures are designed to conserve stocks by reducing catches of juvenile fish and discards.
In October, after many months of negotiations, we secured a good package that met the key needs of our industry on mesh sizes, and, for the first time, introduced

341
into Community legislation the square mesh panels that our industry strongly supports as a means of increasing the selectivity of nets. Among a range of other provisions, we secured important new measures in the shellfish sector, which have been particularly warmly welcomed.
Dr. Liam Fox: The Minister has referred to the cod TAC: perhaps he could tell us the logic behind the decision to increase that catch but not that for haddock by anything like the same proportion.
Mr. Morley: The recommendation for increasing the TAC of a species comes from ICES and the fisheries scientists. They reach that decision on the basis of their monitoring and measurement of stocks. It is their view that the cod catch could be increased to a greater extent than that of haddock. We must take that scientific advice into account when making a decision on TACs.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Something of a paradox exists because, although the cod stock is increasing and recovering, it is still outside safe biological limits, whereas the haddock stock is inside that safe limit. It is important to stress that unless working fishermen can understand the reasoning behind some of the scientific advice, it loses credibility, and it becomes all the more difficult to enforce TACs.
Will the Minister assure the House that he will look carefully at the advice given on haddock to see whether something can be done, perhaps through the industrial by-catch element, to allow for an increase in the haddock catch, which the evidence seems to support even if the scientific recommendation does not?
Mr. Morley: The points raised by the hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) were also raised with me this morning in a meeting with representatives of the industry. I undertook to query the total allowable catch with the Commission in the Fisheries Council. We need good science, but there must be co-operation between the industry and scientists. It is right and appropriate that when scientists make a recommendation which, on the face of it, appears contradictory, they need to explain their case for it. We will certainly examine that reasoning and ensure that the information is made available.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Does not this matter serve as a timely reminder to the Government to bear in mind the fact that, although advisers can give the advice, they must make the tactical decision on whether that advice is correct and appropriate? The Minister has been reminded again this afternoon that it is not practical, as proposed, to catch fish before they have had a chance to breed. Surely to goodness it should therefore be possible for the politicians to move in to stop that, instead of simply sheltering behind the advice given them by scientists.
Mr. Morley: On occasions, a political decision must be taken in relation to TACs and quotas, but one must have a basis for doing so. One cannot take such political decisions just because one would like to have more fish. If such an attitude is taken, the stocks will be run down and there will be no fish. There must be a baseline and some kind of reference point, and that must come from scientists.
342
It is true that fisheries science, by its very nature, is imprecise; nevertheless we must take into account the advice offered, and use it as a starting point from which to work. That is important.
Mr. Gill rose—
Mr. Morley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make some progress.
MAGP IV—multi-annual guidance programme IV—is a major issue which has preoccupied both the Government and the fishing industry for two years. It has been a sword of Damocles over the industry because of the uncertainty about the size of the cuts that the industry faced in view of the need for effort control.
I must repeat that the situation the Government inherited was far from satisfactory. The previous Administration adopted a negotiating technique that greatly reduced their potential influence on the final outcome, in that it became clear that they would not vote in favour of any likely conclusion. Since May, we have been seeking to recover the ground in the negotiations to prepare a detailed United Kingdom plan to implement the April decisions on MAGP IV. I can now say that we have succeeded in making considerable progress, and in mitigating the scale of the cuts that the industry feared.
First, we had to put right various technical flaws concerning MAGP I am pleased to report that we succeeded in getting agreement on the long overdue technical changes in the proposals for the Commission's final MAGP IV decisions. As a result, our overall shortfall on tonnage for MAGP III will reduce to less then 3 per cent., and we shall have met our total power target under that scheme.
The 1997 decommissioning scheme, the results of which I announced on 3 December, will help to narrow the gap further, but there remain significant shortfalls in both the pelagic and beam trawl segments. The profitability of those segments has effectively precluded any real interest in decommissioning until now.
For MAGP IV, we, like all other member states, are still awaiting the formal adoption by the Commission of our definitive targets. Regrettably, that has been delayed. It should have taken place before 30 November. On the assumption that the proposals considered by the management committee at the end of October are confirmed, we shall have secured a treatment of the main demersal and nephrops fisheries that should make it possible to avoid the need to restrict time at sea, provided that present effort levels do not increase, and that other measures directed at the conservation of fish stocks are fully respected.
We shall also have secured recognition of certain new fishing opportunities for the pelagic fleet, which should help to offset continued growth in that segment. In addition, there will be separate targets for the beam trawl fleet as between the North sea fishery and those in the south-west, which will enable the implementing measures to be applied appropriately to the different parts of that fleet. That will be an important and helpful outcome for our fishing industry, because it means that we can avoid the need for fishing effort controls on the great majority of fishing vessels.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not increasingly clear that the whole machinery of European

343
Commission control of catches and the husbandry effort that it has made, which often bears no comparison with the successful efforts unilaterally conducted by Iceland and Norway, means that—certainly following the enlargement of the EU now in prospect, including the accession of Estonia and Poland with their significant fishing fleets—if we are to maintain the crazy notion of a "common resource", much of which is our territorial water, stocks will continue to decline, there will be further decommissioning, and more British fishermen will be put out of work?
Mr. Morley: I have said several times that, in my view, the term "common resource" is out of date, as fish stocks are now protected by the idea of relative stability, which means that our share of the fish quota is protected within the common fisheries policy.
It is true that countries outside Europe have had successful fisheries regimes, but that has not always been the case—certainly not for Norway, whose industrial fishery collapsed, or for Canada, where the cod fishery has collapsed. There is no guarantee that going it alone necessarily brings an improvement in fisheries policy. What is clear is that, even if we could go it alone, we would still have to have a pan-European fisheries management policy.
Mr. Godman: May I make a plea on behalf of the nephrops fishermen? Can they be allowed to remain in their separate segment, as in MAGP III? That is an important issue for nephrops fishermen.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right: that is an important issue for that sector. However, many of the vessels move in and out of the white fish sector, and there is logic in having nephrops and the demersal fleet in the same sector. We shall, of course, consider any representations that we receive.
Mr. James Wallace: The Minister is making an interesting statement. Could he elaborate on what he has said about the pelagic sector, because the expectation under MAGP IV was for a sizeable cut in that sector at a time when the TACs were debating a 60 per cent. increase in North sea herring and a 20 per cent. increase in North sea mackerel? It would be ironic if, despite having far more fishing opportunities, the time that pelagic vessels were allowed to be at sea was cut. Does the Minister think that MAGP IV is a good mechanism for restructuring the pelagic fleet, and does the review clause at the end of 1999 enable us to defer decisions on the pelagic fleet?
Mr. Morley: I confirm that the review clause in 1999 will allow us to examine the progress of the whole MAGP. The majority of the fleet has now met its MAGP target in total. Effort restrictions will apply to only about 250 vessels, including the pelagic fleet. There has been substantial expansion of and investment in the pelagic fleet in recent years. Although increases have been recommended for mackerel and for North sea herring, some of the pelagic stocks to the west of Scotland are in a pretty poor state.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made a good point.
344
The central question is whether capacity reduction is appropriate for pelagic stocks, the availability of which is subject to wild swings. Once capacity has been reduced, there is no access to bring it back. The Minister would be well advised to consider how the Dutch manage effort limitation on the pelagic side. They do it in such a way as to meet MAGP requirements without seriously inconveniencing the fleet. Would that not be a better method than the blunt instrument of capacity reduction? Perhaps a more sophisticated method is necessary, so as not to fling away the fishing opportunities to which the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland referred.
Mr. Morley: It may be useful if I finish what I was saying about MAGP IV, because I shall touch on some of the points that the hon. Gentlemen have raised. We are keen to implement effort limitations in co-operation with the industries concerned, and to give them the option of managing those effort limitations themselves. If they have workable schemes, such as the Dutch scheme, that is fine by us.
I appreciate that effort limitation is a burden on the pelagic sector, as it has not been decommissioning. However, one of the advantages of effort limitation is that, if stocks improve and if the science shows that there is increased availability and opportunities for fishing, the fleet could be allowed to expand. That is a more flexible way of dealing with the problem than decommissioning.
Effort is most in excess of our targets in the pelagic and beam trawl segments. We understand why they have not responded to the decommissioning schemes, but the only practical alternative for the Government is to introduce effort controls for those segments. That will come as no surprise to those sectors.
Given the relatively small number of vessels involved—about 250—the Government's preference is for groups of vessels to co-operate in managing their effort collectively, along the lines of the current management of quotas by producer organisations. That covers the points that the hon. Gentlemen raised. Effort allocations would be set annually by group and by fishery, and would be aimed at reducing effort to the final MAGP IV targets over the next four years. The average effort reduction is likely to be 30 per cent. for the pelagic sector and 15 per cent. for beam trawlers, with higher figures of about 36 and 19 per cent. respectively for the North sea.
Detailed discussions with the fishermen concerned will begin as soon as practicable, but the monitoring of effort and its recording against the new targets will have to begin from 1 January 1998. If agreement on the sort of devolved flexible arrangements that the Government are suggesting cannot be reached, a centralised system will have to be imposed to ensure that the relevant annual limits are not breached. That will include, if necessary, the closure of fisheries when effort allocations are exhausted. Inevitably, a centrally imposed system will be less flexible and sensitive to market needs, so I hope that the industry will respond constructively to the Government's proposal for self-management.
Mr. Jack: I seek clarification. The Minister seems to want to sub-contract his effort control to the industry. Can he confirm that that would be a burden on the industry? Does he have proposals for financial assistance for the

345
industry for managing effort control? Has he ruled out further moneys for decommissioning in the sectors that he has mentioned?
Mr. Morley: I shall shortly deal with those matters. For the reasons that I have given, it is surely more desirable to put the management of effort control in the hands of the industry so that it can take choices that fit working patterns while enabling it to reach the targets. I think that the industry will welcome that. The right hon. Gentleman asks about financial support. We are operating on the budget that was left to us by the previous Government, and they made no such provision. We have to work within those financial limits.
For the newly combined demersal/nephrops segment, which is roughly half the UK fleet or some 1,500 vessels over 10 m, we do not plan any restriction on time at sea in 1998. In deciding on that approach, we have taken account of the effort targets that are being defined, the impact of the current decommissioning and the effect of strengthened enforcement. Fishing effort remains a matter of concern in fisheries where scientific advice is for reductions in fish mortality. For that reason, fishing effort will be very carefully monitored, and we shall strengthen enforcement to help to ensure that quotas and other conservation measures are properly respected.
The position will be kept under review in 1998 and beyond, so that action can be taken if fishing effort does not respond as envisaged. If effort limits prove necessary, the reference period for any management measures would be based on effort prior to 1998. We are making that clear now, so that fishermen know that there is nothing to be gained by attempting to build up a record of increased fishing activity. The approach to the remaining segments of the fleet—lines and nets, shellfish, fixed and mobile—will be on the same lines, although for distant water vessels the application of article 8 of the April Council decision needs to be further clarified with the Commission in the light of the continuing consultations with industry on the proposals that we sent to it in September. That will be taken forward as soon as practicable.
There is one other general change in relation to MAGP IV compared with MAGP III, which I should like to signal now—the handling of segmentation. Under the previous arrangements, a vessel's allocation to a specific fleet segment was purely for statistical purposes. Under MAGP IV, there are differential effort targets for different parts of the fleet. As a result, we must have arrangements that determine in advance the segment and targets to which a particular vessel is subject for the coming year. Full details are set out in reply to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), which I am answering today. In brief, the arrangements will mean that, initially, a vessel will be subject to the effort regime of the segment in which it fished in 1996. As no effort constraints are planned for the great bulk of the fleet, the impact of this new requirement is likely to be very narrow.
We are taking this opportunity to make some changes to our licensing arrangements. Again, these will primarily affect the pelagic sector and will extend the ring fence around the pelagic fleet to prevent further growth in its capacity.
We shall also be setting down a timetable for linking the licensing of all fishing vessels to the declaration of maximum continuous engine power, as well as reviewing
346
the operation of the licensing system to see whether and how that might be improved. We should like to involve the fishing industry in the review, and I am proposing that officials should hold a series of meetings with representatives of the principal fishermen's organisations during 1998. There are acknowledged difficulties in the reliable recording of engine power and it is important that we address those if MAGP IV is to operate fairly and reliably. For that reason, I hope that the licensing review—again, with representatives of the industry—will look at the arrangements that will need to be made for the licensing of maximum continuous engine power.
My final remarks on MAGP IV relate to future decommissioning, to which the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred. The initial implementing arrangements which I have described are expected to be sufficient for immediate purposes to ensure satisfactory progress towards our targets. As the bulk of the UK fleet has now met its targets, there is no requirement for decommissioning for the vast majority of the UK fleet. The previous Administration made no financial provision for decommissioning beyond this year; nor did they provide for grants towards satellite monitoring.
Before reaching any view on whether we should operate decommissioning or other new measures in future, we need to complete the comprehensive spending review that is currently taking place. In respect of fisheries, the review is looking at all aspects of expenditure, whether on administration and enforcement, or on the various grants that are currently paid. It will examine the future need for such expenditure and the ways in which it could be funded in the future, including the possibility of the industry itself making a contribution. Thus, the range and scale of all expenditure will be looked at, and the scale and financing of—and, of course, the need for—any decommissioning will be decided when that review is concluded.
Mr. Gill: Before concluding his remarks, will the Minister make it quite clear to the House what he understands relative stability to mean in relation to the British fishing fleet? Is he saying that, regardless of how many new members join the European Union and assuming that fish stocks remain static, the amount of fish that the British fishing fleet will be permitted to catch will remain constant in terms of tonnage?
Mr. Morley: No. It is the share that will remain constant and not necessarily the tonnage, because stocks and quotas vary from year to year. I can confirm that the principle of relative stability means that any new members that join an enlarged European Union will not have the right to fish on quota in our waters, or in Community waters, unless they have a track record of having done so.
The House will appreciate that this is a difficult package, especially for some parts of the fishing industry; but it represents a very considerable improvement on what they might have expected some months ago. In particular, we are able to limit the introduction of effort controls to no more than about 250 vessels, and there is no current expectation of effort controls being required for the rest of the fleet in order to meet the targets of MAGP IV. We are offering the industry the opportunity to share in the task of managing effort and managing quota more effectively and thus take a greater responsibility for the successful management of fisheries. I hope that the

347
industry will work with us to make the controls that are needed as flexible as possible, as it is in its own best interests to do.
I referred earlier to the need for conservation measures to be fully respected. Since taking office on 1 May, I and my colleagues have repeatedly emphasised that the long-term future of the industry depends on the effective conservation of fish stocks. That includes action to deal with the problems created by black fish. Our commitment to improve standards of enforcement was spelt out at the high-level talks my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture had with the leaders of the fishing industry in July. As promised then, we shall be consulting industry in the new year about plans to introduce a system of designated ports for white fish landings made by our larger vessels. That, coupled with the phased introduction of satellite monitoring, will enable us to make much better use of the resources we devote to enforcement.
At the same time, we have been actively reviewing with the European Commission the steps that might be taken to raise enforcement standards across the Community, following up the undertaking the Commission President gave to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Amsterdam in June. We can expect to see the Commission's ideas in the new year, and we have made it clear that we will give priority to examining them during our presidency.
There will continue to be a great deal to do during 1998 to secure the future of the fishing industry. I have already referred to the implementation of MAGP IV, the need to look at the financing of the fisheries sector in the context of the comprehensive spending review, and our determination to develop improved enforcement measures in the UK and across the Community.
In January 1998, Britain takes up the presidency of the European Union. For fisheries, that means that my right hon. Friend will chair the two meetings of the Council which are planned, and we see good prospects of using this opportunity not just to manage the business efficiently, but to focus on some important issues—including not only enforcement, as I have mentioned, but the environmental dimensions of the CFP and policy development, including the more effective involvement of local fishermen in the management processes.
We have agreed with the European Commission that it will be promoting with us a debate on how to improve EU-wide enforcement of the common fisheries policy, and I am optimistic that we shall be able to adopt new and more effective rules. Environmental issues will be addressed through measures to phase out drift nets used for tuna fishing, and so reduce the dolphin and other by-catches. We also envisage a review of action being taken to implement the Bergen inter-ministerial meeting on sustainable fishing in the North sea.
We need to be sure that everything possible is being done to apply well-based environmental measures where they can help the fisheries sector. We plan a debate on the marketing regime to give guidance to the Commission in preparing proposals; and the Council will also be looking at plans for handling the 2002 review of the CFP and having a report on the closer involvement of fishermen in fisheries management through regional meetings.
348
The Government intend to continue to keep in close touch with fishermen on all these matters as the presidency progresses.
Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley: Briefly, as I must bring my remarks to a close.
Mr. Wallace: What does the Minister hope to achieve during the presidency to ensure much more equality of enforcement of fisheries measures throughout the Community?
Mr. Morley: That will be one of the priorities during our presidency. I attended the conference of Fisheries Ministers in Vigo, when enforcement was the main topic. I was very encouraged by the undoubted determination of all countries in the European Union to tackle enforcement and such issues as the landing and, indeed, the marketing of undersized fish, of which there is a long tradition in some countries. It is an issue on which we need to make progress, and we believe that there is support for that in both the Commission and the Council.
I have had many contacts with fishermen and fishermen's organisations during my time as a Minister. The leading organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and, in Scotland, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation play a vital part in ensuring that the Government receive a full and balanced presentation of what the catching sector is thinking. I pay a warm tribute to the constructive role they have played. I would also like to take this opportunity to send good wishes to Cecil Finn, the president of the SFF, who is recovering from a triple heart bypass operation.
The NFFO and the SFF were key voices when, last July, we took the initiative of convening a meeting of a broad range of interests in the fishing industry. That high-level meeting went much wider than the catching sector and was, we believe, useful in giving broader direction to the consideration of policy. We envisage having a further high-level meeting early next year to look at the topics arising during our presidency.
The underlying problems of the fisheries sector are substantial, and a great deal remains to be done. It will not be easy for the fishing industry, which will need to accept continuing adjustments and rationalisation if it is to be sustainable and economic in the long term. However, the Government are determined to secure the industry's future and to plan the way forward in close contact with all parts of the industry, and taking full account of the interests of consumers and the environmental implications of fisheries policy.
For the first time in many years, we are making progress on a number of fronts relating to outstanding issues. The MAGP IV agreement gives the industry some stability, and it will come as a relief for most of the fleet. It is our priority to achieve a sustainable fishing industry and to give fishermen a real stake in managing it. While much remains to be done, the days of gesture politics to appease an anti-European rump are over.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: What a shame.
Mr. Morley: Our priority is a prosperous, stable and sustainable fishing industry recognising the rich regional

349
diversity of our coastal communities and the crucial importance to certain regions of this national industry. The measures I have announced today are an important beginning in meeting those objectives.
I commend the motion to the House.
4.34 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I beg to move, To leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'notes the contents of the unnumbered explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1997 outlining the basis of the negotiations for the December Fisheries Council; and supports efforts to secure the best possible sustainable fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom industry, but recognises that, whatever the Council's outcome, the Government have yet again failed Britain's fishermen through their inability to provide an EU Treaty-based solution to the question of quota hopping, any form of workable plan to enable the industry to respond to the demands of MAGP IV and a statement reflecting the Government's priorities in the forthcoming discussions on CFP reform.'.
I was intrigued by the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). His voice was a timely contribution to the debate because it showed that Labour Members are not going to allow the Minister to have his own way.
Before I get into the meat of the debate, on behalf of the Opposition, I repeat the Minister's salute to the industry. We associate ourselves with his remarks about the sad losses in the industry since the debate 12 months ago. Any hon. Member who read the newspaper reports of the raising of the vessel Sapphire, and the reports of the continuing anguish of the families, will understand only too clearly what a dangerous occupation fishing is. Those of us who enjoy our fish, whether in the form of traditional fish and chips or of more sophisticated dishes, have much for which to thank the fishing industry, which ensures a regular supply of excellent quality fish.
I join the Minister in sending my best wishes to Cecil Finn. He has been a doughty advocate of the industry north of the border, and we wish him well.
The Minister tried to give the impression that all was sweetness and light between the industry and the Labour party, but I took some comfort from a west country newspaper article that followed his first meeting as Minister. In the Western Morning News of 13 May, Jim Portus, chief executive of the South-West Fish Producers Organisation, said:
"I have never been so depressed after meeting with a Fisheries Minister. The whole atmosphere was clouded by his apparent determination that, having been given a legal obligation to reduce the fishing fleet, that is what we are going to do because we are all good Europeans now."
I felt slightly better having read that. Having been in the fishing industry's firing line, I am still dusting the flour from my coat, or at least my driver's coat, so I know what it is like. I sympathise with the Minister. It is a rough, tough industry to negotiate with, but it is worth standing up for.
I know that the Minister has a genuine interest in the fishing industry because I debated the matter with him when we were in government and he was in opposition, and he showed his expertise and understanding in the way in which he dealt with the interventions. I wish him well in his supporting role to the Minister of Agriculture,
350
Fisheries and Food at the Agriculture Council. No doubt the Minister will read out the speaking notes, ably written by his officials, but the explanation will come from the Parliamentary Secretary.
As the hon. Member said, this is our annual opportunity to review the fishing industry and to hold the Government to account for their stewardship of fishing policy, for which they have been responsible for the past eight months. It is a great pity that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not able to be here, because he will carry much of the burden. I am sure that he will be engaged in bilateral discussions with other fisheries Ministers.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), will be able to tell us in his winding-up speech whether the Minister will present the case on behalf of the United Kingdom industry in the form of a special presentation to the presidency and to the chairman of the Council of Ministers to make certain that our negotiating position is properly understood before the detailed discussions start tomorrow.
I want to review in a little more detail some of the issues involving total allowable catches and quotas that the Minister has mentioned. His party is fond of discussing openness. It is important that, in his winding-up speech, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland comments on how he views some of the genuine issues that the industry has put before him.
It is important that the Minister be held to account for what he achieves in the negotiations in Brussels. I hope that he will desist from the typical way in which a difficult negotiation is usually wrapped up: a press release, which was written before he left his new sumptuous premises in Smith square, is issued, which reads something like, "We had a terrifically tough negotiation." The Minister works out that any extra stock is worth X thousand or million pounds more, adds everything together and says that it is a tremendous result for the British fishing industry because the total value of the catch is going up; but that leaves people thrashing about if their sector has gone down or if it is the one for which the Minister has failed to meet his negotiating remit.
I want more a little more detail from the Minister about how he is to proceed. I am not accusing him of being a dishonest person, but will he assure us that he will be straightforward and honest when he reports the outcome of the Council?
I want to spend a little time examining the Minister's record on quota hopping, to probe him a little more on multi-annual guidance programme IV, to raise briefly the working time directive—a cause of deep concern in the industry, especially north of the border—to ask a question on behalf of the frozen food industry and its difficulties in persuading the Minister to talk to its representatives about supplies of fish from Russian sources, and to mention briefly the difficulties of the Thames fishing industry.
Mr. Morley: I must correct the impression that the right hon. Gentleman may have given. I recently met representatives of the frozen food industry to talk about the problems of Russian supply.
Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he has had that conversation because when

351
industry representatives came to see me, they were having great difficulty in getting more than eight vessels registered as approved sources. I appreciate that fish hygiene has to be taken extremely seriously, but the Minister, who has a constituency interest in the frozen food sector, will understand the industry's worries in ensuring a plentiful supply of fish. He will know that the UK is in deficit in its fish supply, and how important those frozen cod blocks are. I am grateful that he has met industry representatives and I shall not press him further on the matter, but I hope that he will make every effort to resolve the niggling and awkward problem that first led the industry to come to see me.
The Minister implied that his party's relationships with Europe were in such good shape that he could look forward to a warm and cosy Council where he will achieve all his objectives. He may have forgotten what happened yesterday. We awoke to find that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had, in the nicest sense, been well and truly rolled over by the Standing Veterinary Committee, which voted 14 to one against the British proposals in connection with specified risk materials and the adaptation of those proposals for beef coming into this country. I do not want to let the debate veer off into a surf and turf discussion, but that is an illustration of the fact that not everything in the European garden is lovely.
I deal first with the use, for the first time in advice from the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management, of the precautionary approach. The Minister will be aware of the implications of that and the way it is being used in the context of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea's advice.
The industry recognises that some severe cuts in stocks have been proposed by the ACFM, but I think that the Minister will agree that it recognises that scientists have not always taken their own advice into account. In fact, it has been left to the Commission, recognising that there is a 40 per cent. floor on total allowable catch reductions, to temper the view of the scientists. However, a reduction of 40 per cent. in stock represents a massive swing in availability. The Minister will recognise that it destabilises vessel viability and rational marketing, and places terrific pressure on quota management.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, especially as this approach can, in its own way, lead to a growth of discards, which is against the conservation objectives that the Minister wants to attain. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
Will the Minister consider forming for the first time a joint council of fishermen and scientists to give him a permanent standing committee to offer advice on the question of stocks? The debate on proper TAC levels and quotas at this time of year is typified both by scientists' up-and-down view, which I have described, and by the view of fishermen, who say, "It's not really like that. We're not seeing that situation out there." The time has come when both sides of the debate need to reach some agreement.
The Minister was right to point out that it is best not to postpone detailed discussion to just before the Council meets. Although his own scientists gave the industry a briefing on the subject a couple of weeks ago, they did so without knowing the Commission's final and full figures.
352
The time really has come when such a joint committee—perhaps sitting on a permanent basis, throughout the year—would be a much better way of trying to set the British position and of getting both sides to accept appropriate TAC levels and quotas. I shall be grateful if the Minister will consider it.
In sage interventions, hon. Members have pointed out that—to the industry's welcome—the North sea cod TAC has been increased substantially. I was delighted to hear mention of the conservation element of the increase, as a quantity of fish has been banked for the future. Nevertheless, although the cod stock has turned round remarkably in 18 months, one can imagine the industry's incredulity to learn that the very MAGP IV figures that the Minister presented to the House today were being formulated in a period in which that stock was said to be collapsing.
Substantial reductions in effort have been proposed using yesterday's stock information, whereas today's stock information shows substantial increases in the cod fishery. MAGP IV originally proposed that the cod sector of the fleet make a 30 per cent. cut in its fishing effort—demonstrating the real difficulty in people taking decisions with long-term implications for the industry on the basis of short-term and sometimes questionable scientific advice. I ask the Minister to comment on just how satisfied he is with the way in which scientific advice is being handled.
The reverse situation—of the North sea haddock TAC being reduced—must also be explored. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, haddock stock is inside its safe biological levels. As we question the science on quota sizes, so we should question the science dealing with cod and haddock as a mixed fishery. People do not understand how one part of a mixed fishery can increase when it is subject to the same fishing level as another part that has decreased. The Minister owes the House a better explanation for that, and should not simply rely on the good news about cod, so that he can avoid the bad news about haddock.
I should like also to deal with three other North sea stocks: whiting, saithe and hake. The industry faces a reduction in the whiting TAC of almost 20 per cent. Again, however, the stock remains inside its safe biological limit. May I press the Minister to assure the House that, in the Council tomorrow, he will discuss adjusting industrial by-catches to deal with the whiting situation—just as it has been proposed that part of the solution to the haddock situation might be achieved by re-examining industrial by-catches?
May I press the Under-Secretary also—if he is listening to this important point—to acknowledge and to give the House an undertaking that he will invoke the Hague preference on by-catches and on other crucial matters in which it would be to the benefit of the United Kingdom fishing industry to do so? There is a very strong feeling in the industry about that matter. I should be grateful if, in his reply, he would say on which matters the Hague preference will be invoked.
Will the hon. Gentleman also comment on saithe? Again, there is a sizeable reduction, from 115,000 tonnes to 97,000 tonnes. The industry feels that, in trying to meet the revised position on saithe, we will end up with a lot of dumping of fish from vessels that do not have a quota

353
for saithe. That brings the issue of discards—which I know is of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—into sharper focus.
When the Minister has studied the figures for the western Scotland waters, he will be aware that some of the small quotas in that area produce precisely the opposite effect. Reducing pressure mathematically results in increased pressure biologically and increased discard rates. That issue also requires a great deal of care.
I should like to raise two matters, one connected with herring and the other with horse mackerel. The Parliamentary Secretary said nothing about a significant change that resulted from discussions between the European Union and Norway. For the first time, the Norwegians have secured a permanent stock share of 29 per cent. of the herring in the North sea. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but if he had had meetings with the industry, he would not have been laughing when that point was raised. I would not like the Minister to damage his reputation with the industry by laughing.
Mr. Morley: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was an ironic laugh, given that that disadvantageous agreement was reached by the Conservative Government.
Mr. Jack: The present Government have been in power for nearly eight months. The Minister cannot for ever go back in time. I remind him that we are now eight months into the current fishing year. He has the responsibility of negotiating for the United Kingdom at the Council meeting tomorrow and raising matters on behalf of the UK industry. The industry has suggested that he was a little lax in that agreement, and that 29 per cent. is too high. He may like to comment on that.
Will the Minister tell the House whether he will probe the basis of introducing TAC for horse mackerel for the first time? He will be aware of the concerns over the misrecording of those stocks and he will understand that when those stocks come to be allocated by the Commission, catch recordings and the historic track record are crucial. The industry would like his assurance that the matter will be addressed.
There is concern that, in certain cases, mackerel may well have been recorded as horse mackerel. The matter obviously needs clearing up. They may be points of detail, but, if they are not properly evaluated at this stage, we will not get a result in the amount of fish available to the UK that will help our industry to be viable. When the Minister issues his written parliamentary answer giving us the results—it would be too much to ask him to make a statement to the House—we shall need to know what he has achieved, to hold him accountable for his stewardship of these matters.
A moment ago, I mentioned area VI in the west of Scotland. Will the Minister consider extremely carefully the stocks there—particularly the stocks of cod and whiting? The industry feels strongly that the result in that area will increase discards. The Mallaig fishermen undertook a scientific calculation which shows that nearly 4,000 tonnes of saithe could be dumped in pursuit of meeting the narrow, limited and reduced quotas that are on offer. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider cod, whiting and saithe in the context of my remarks. In respect of whiting and saithe, will he give the House an assurance that he will examine the credentials of using the Hague preference, should it prove necessary?
354
In the context of the seas around the shores of western Scotland, what will the Minister do to address the blatant manipulation by the Dutch during their presidency in achieving the result on Atlanto-Scandian herring? There is a real need for the UK to return to the issue and get the quotas sorted out. The industry feels very strongly that, in the nicest sense, the UK was taken to the cleaners on that matter. It would like to know what the Minister will do in the negotiations to try to put matters right.
Mr. Salmond: Which Government were in power when the United Kingdom was taken to the cleaners on that vital matter of herring?
Mr. Jack: I am looking to what the Minister can do in negotiations. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, who will know of the Scottish industry's strong feelings, chooses to chastise me.
What will the Minister do about Irish sea haddock? It has come to the notice of the industry that that stock is now abundant. I should be grateful if he gave a commentary on how we will approach negotiations on the haddock quota in the Irish sea. The industry feels that the science of the cod stocks in that area has improved. Egg surveys, for example, which clearly affect the spawning stock biomass in that part of the ocean, are now positive, after being gloomy. I should be pleased to know whether the Minister will look at that matter.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) is present and will no doubt be advocating the same line on behalf of fishermen in Fleetwood. They have not had the easiest of times, so some reflection in our quotas of the improvement in cod and haddock stocks in the Irish sea would be much appreciated.
Will the Minister consider several other matters concerning stocks? Whiting in area Vila is again above its safe biological level, and a reduction is proposed. I should be grateful if the Minister looked again at industry representations on that and told us precisely what he will do.
I draw the Minister's attention to an anomaly in channel stocks of cod. The discussion at the beginning of the debate illustrated the fact that the quantity of North sea cod has increased. He will know that, biologically, parts of the channel stocks include North sea cod. Yet, bizarrely, due to the way in which the ICES areas are broken down, some aspects of the channel cod quotas are going down, while other parts of the same North sea stock are going up. The industry would be pleased to know whether the Minister will argue for consistency. It would also be grateful if the Minister considered plaice and sole stocks in that context.
May I raise a point that I outlined at the beginning of my remarks on the difficulties of some Essex fishermen in the Thames estuary who are trying to scratch a living by fishing sole? When I held the Minister's portfolio, I battled with that problem. I have great sympathy for fishermen in the non-sector who are facing extinction due to the very small quantities of sole. Will the Minister please have another look at that problem on behalf of those fishermen? Perhaps a new fishing regime is required; perhaps one that mirrors the cockles regime, which works extremely well for the Thames fishermen. The matter must be looked at very carefully.
I conclude my remarks on stocks by asking the Minister to examine very carefully the inter-relationship in area VII between angler fish and megrim. Will the Government

355
take account of the fact that the reductions in TAC stocks of angler fish, megrim and whiting, which are taken together in a mixed fishery, will lead to an increase in discards in the next fishing period, not a reduction in fishing mortality? That mixture underpins the fishery in area VII and it is important that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies to that point.
I should be grateful if the Minister acknowledged some of the concerns expressed in the interventions in his speech by several hon. Members when he commented about the areas for sand eels, megrim, monkfish, turbot, skate, rays and mixed flatfish in the North sea where new TACs will be imposed.
The industry is worried that the basis for the determination of those TACs will not be the full catch from 1996. Questions of misrecording must also be addressed and some proper scientific research undertaken in area VI to discover whether the figures are worth the paper they are printed on. Those are important points for the industry and I should be grateful if the Minister would consider them carefully.
On the broader issues, the Minister regaled us a moment ago with the situation on MAGP IV. He gave us a lot of detail and it was the first definitive reply to representations made on the matter by the industry in its letter of 23 September. The industry had been concerned by the lack of a reply and I hope that the Minister who is to reply will give an assurance that definitive responses will be sent to the industry's communications.
I was interested to read the comments of the Minister of Transport who, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench this time last year, told the House:
"I will protect the UK fishing industry and ensure that we continue with our basic premise—that there will be no further reduction in UK fishing capacity or fishing effort until the whole issue of quota hoppers is resolved. I hope that that is perfectly clear."—[Official Report, 16 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 665.]
It is not clear how the matter of quota hoppers is to be resolved.
The Minister put before the House a list of economic relationships that he hopes to have written into licences. He said nothing about what will be in next year's licences to advance the solution to the problem of quota hoppers. He told us nothing about any legal advice that he has taken on his proposals. That is like Chamberlain returning to the airport at Heston, saying, "I have an agreement", only to find that war broke out soon afterwards.
What legal advice has the Ministry sought to ensure that as soon as the economic relationship requirements are written into a UK licence, the Spanish do not whack the matter into the European Court? If that happens, the potential solution to quota hoppers, which is only a piece of paper at the moment, could be set back for three years. If the solution is set back in the European Court, how can the Minister rely on the assurance given to the House by the Minister of Transport, when he was the Opposition spokesman, that there would be no further reduction in fishing capacity or effort in this country until the matter was resolved? Several issues are still unresolved.
Mr. Morley: I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of the details of the proposed economic links, which were made very public in the
356
exchange of letters. The economic links, as they were worded, were approved by the Commission and by the President of the Commission. As he and the Commission have responsibilities as guardians of the treaties, that approval counts for a great deal. In previous disputes, such as Factortame and the amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988—when the Government were taken to court and lost—the Commission did not support the Government's approach.
Mr. Jack: It is all right the hon. Gentleman saying that the Commission helped design this set of words, but I understand that the Commission said that it would be happy to receive proposals based on a set of principles. The Government have made proposals, but have not yet subjected them to the testing experience of European law. I will gladly give way to the Minister if he will stand up and say that the Commission's legal advice—or, indeed, the legal advice available to the Council—has said definitively that these proposals are not able to be challenged in the European Court. Has he had any bilateral discussions with Spain and received an assurance from that country that it for one will not challenge us on the proposals?
Mr. Morley: Those discussions are still taking place with the Commission. Nevertheless, the wording will be agreed with the advice of the Commission, which is the guardian of the treaty. No matter how one words any licence condition, there is no guarantee that any member state or individual will not take one to court. We have to ensure that the conditions we put forward are in line with European law, and we are confident we can do that.
Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming to the House that there is no guarantee that these measures will work. That is very significant. [Interruption.] I will give way again to the Minister if he wants to clarify his words, but he has admitted in open debate in the House that there is no guarantee that the discussions are continuing, and he has not had the benefit of an opinion from the Commission, the Council or anybody else. He has had no bilateral talks with Spain to discuss the issue. At the moment, all we have is a series of paper proposals which may or may not deal with the issue. We have no indication of the Minister's fall-back position.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that these measures on the economic link are working? Fishermen in my constituency have told me that one of the quota hoppers has taken on two British fishermen, when they did not take on fishermen before.
Mr. Jack: That is very interesting. When representatives of the industry talked to me, one of the concerns they expressed was the seducing away of fishermen from the British industry to work, for example, on Dutch boats. That is the industry's concern—not mine. The hon. Gentleman says that the measures are working, but he may find that they do not work because they are not worth the paper on which they are printed. The Minister has made that clear to the House tonight.
Dr. George Turner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being churlish, to say the least,

357
in the way in which he is approaching a Minister who has achieved more in a few months than the previous Government achieved in years? Will he give the House a list of the nations that supported his proposal to have a treaty amendment? I should like to know who they were. His Government found no alternative and, although the measure remains to be worked through, this Government have done a lot more in the short period that I have been a Member of Parliament than the right hon. Gentleman achieved when he was a member of the Government.
Mr. Jack: At least we were going for a legally sound approach. I indicated that there was a precedent as, at Maastricht, we achieved an important protocol to the treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made clear how seriously he took the measure when he pointed out what our negotiating stance for the treaty would be. Sadly, the election did not allow him to test that out.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) perhaps shows little understanding of the way in which deals are done in Europe. Sometimes one starts off from a position of being 14-one down. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is currently 14-one down in terms of getting the specified risk materials ban introduced. However, he has persuaded the Commissioners to be on his side. Eventually, he may have to persuade other member states not to mount legal challenges. If he is terribly skilful and has enough time before Christmas, he may be able to cobble together an alliance that will suit his purpose, but when he has had a little more experience of negotiating he will see that sometimes a triumph can emerge from a difficult position, as was often the case when we were responsible for negotiating in Europe.
I do not want to prolong the Minister's agony, but it is clear that he is not able to give the House the assurance that we seek on quota hopping. That underpins his stance on MAGP IV, and he will find that in his rather broad-brush remarks dealing with the industry's requirements he has effectively subcontracted the effort reduction to the industry. He has not told us what specific help he may be able to give, and it is no use his saying that the Government are working within the spending limits of the previous Government, because that excuse runs out at the end of the period for which MAGP IV is required to run.
The Minister knows that there will be considerable concern, especially in the pelagic sector, as a result of what he has said. He knows something about the industry, so he will be aware that much new capacity is being invested in that sector, particularly in Scotland, and that those boats are now staring under-utilisation in the face as a result of what he has said.
I see that the Minister is conducting a private debate, but it is incumbent on him to listen to the points of Conservative Members, who at least are speaking on behalf of the industry. I should be grateful for an assurance that he will hold detailed and meaningful consultations with the industry about implementation and that he will give proper consideration to the economic impact of what he has said. He must recognise that there may have to be some compulsory element in a days-at-sea policy. I do not blame him for avoiding those difficult words, because we had enough problems when we were
358
looking after the situation, but we managed to avoid compulsion by a sensible decommissioning policy, and he has not.
I have dealt with the paucity of weight behind the Government's position on quota hopping, and the Minister has failed to give us satisfaction on the matter. I seek an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that the Government will properly represent the interests of Scottish share fishermen, in particular, to avoid the excesses of the wholly unnecessary working time directive.
In signing up to the social chapter, the Government led us into this pretty mess, and we should like to think that they might have the sense to keep the fishing industry out of it. The industry has made representations on the matter, and I seek an assurance that Ministers will take it up.
Mr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman has some reservations about the working time directive, but will he confirm that he supports whole-heartedly the directive concerning the occupational safety of fishermen and acknowledge that, as part of that directive, there is a requirement concerning the carriage of immersion or survival suits? I have campaigned for that for many years, but it was always rejected by his colleagues at the Department of Transport.
Mr. Jack: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest and involvement in, and campaign on, safety matters. We have had exchanges before on the subject, and I hope that I gave him a positive response. I would have to check exactly what I said. I cannot be responsible for what others elsewhere in the then Government said in my absence, but I certainly acknowledge that safety is a key element. The industry is concerned about the implications, and he and I know, from a previous discussion on Scottish share fishermen of two different varieties, that the issue is very important to the people whom he represents.
The Minister talked about enforcement. I should be interested to hear more about that in the reply to the debate. We hear the sabre of enforcement being rattled, but the Minister knows that proper enforcement requires resources, which he has told us that he is stuck for. What is this great package of enforcement? When will he come clean and publish the details? Does he intend to benchmark the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement?
It is sad that the Minister was not able to confide in us what the United Kingdom's presidency priorities will be.
Mr. Morley: I did.
Mr. Jack: If he did, perhaps I did not hear properly. Perhaps those priorities could be put a little more sharply in focus in the reply to the debate. It would have been helpful if we could have spent a little more time hearing how the United Kingdom will pursue various priorities, because one of those could be the build-up to the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2002.
Crucial issues are to be decided in the coming years, on the retention of the six and 12-mile limits; on the Shetland box; and on access to waters. I seek an assurance—[Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would pay attention, because my remarks represent the concerns of the fishing industry.

359
I seek an assurance that the Government will find time in the next 12 months for a debate so that we can all discuss some crucial matters about the reform of the common fisheries policy. It is crucial that we should have a clear position as the debate develops. We know the lines of the Commission's views as set out at Greenwich, and the subject is very important indeed.
The Minister has not given the House a clear outline of his policy on quota hopping. The policy on MAGP IV is indistinct and, sadly, we were not told how the Minister envisages the way forward for the common fisheries policy. It will be up to him and his ministerial team to prove whether they have the confidence of the fishing industry. Conservative Members will continue to do our best to ask the questions that are of concern to this vital national asset.
5.16 pm
Mr. Frank Doran: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his first annual fishing debate. We spent many happy hours sitting behind him on the Opposition Benches when I was in the House previously. I especially welcome the much more constructive way in which these debates are now held; they were certainly bad-tempered, rancorous affairs under the previous Administration, but we are now talking constructively and purposefully about the industry.
In anticipation of his later contribution, I welcome the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), to the Front Bench. I think that this is his first appearance there. Like me, he has spent many happy hours in these fishing debates.
I suppose that I should also congratulate the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on his remarks, and especially on the way in which he managed to persuade himself, if no one else, that the Conservative Government had no responsibility for the mess that the fishing industry was put into over the past 18 years; it is a happy delusion, but I hope that he will eventually come out of it.
I was particularly interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the working time directive. As I recall it, it was introduced under health and safety provisions, not under the social chapter, as he was trying to suggest, and the previous Government had no alternative but to accept it, because it was part of the process of qualified majority voting, which they had accepted with the Single European Act 1985.
I especially welcome the Minister's statement, because it is good to hear such a realistic and constructive approach to the industry. For many years, those of us with fishing constituencies felt as though we were treading water, because the issue had become entangled in the previous Government's obsession with the larger issue of Europe and was not dealt with as a specific subject. We are making progress: I welcome in particular the comments on quotas and I hope that the matter will be successfully concluded at the Council meeting tomorrow. He described the package as a difficult one. Of course it is difficult because there are winners and losers, but that is inevitable given the nature of the industry.
I welcome the comments that my hon. Friend made on MAGP IV. That issue has been hanging over us like a dark cloud for some time now and it was never really
360
tackled. It is now being tackled and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's announcement about progress. Again, it is a difficult package with winners and losers, but there is no doubt that we are making progress.
We all want to see stability in our fishing industry. There was no stability during all my previous years here. It seemed to be one crisis after another as quotas bit deeper and there was conflict about the proper methods to be adopted to reduce or limit effort. We are now taking a coherent approach to the industry and I am pleased with the progress being made.
My constituency interest is in the fish processing side of the industry. Stability is extremely important there. In Aberdeen city, 3,500 jobs depend on the fish processing industry and all those people welcome the progress that is being made. A number of issues facing that industry are causing grave concern and I should like to refer to them.
Fishing is a food industry and there are remarkable similarities between the problems of the fishing industry and the current problems in agriculture. This week seems-to have been dominated, certainly in my life, by the food industry. We had meetings yesterday with a beef producer and today we have had contact with the fishing industry.
One of the serious problems facing the processing industry is the European directive requiring the harmonisation of veterinary charges. That is causing immense concern. I was given some examples by the United Kingdom Fish Merchants and Processors Federation. The current charge for 30 consignments of fish is £197, which works out at about £6 per consignment. After 1 January, the figure will leap to £3,423. That is a massive leap in an industry that is fairly fragmented and where there are a large number of small operators.
There is also massive concern about the problem of urban waste water treatment as a result of directive 91/271/EEC. That is the concept of producer pays. The industry is a massive consumer of water and is facing real difficulties as local water authorities apply that directive to local industry.
Another major issue of concern—I have been lobbied on this recently by a number of companies in my constituency and outside—is the problem of imported fish. Our industry uses about 100,000 tonnes of cod a year, but our catch is only about 70,000 tonnes. The extra 30,000 tonnes is imported, the bulk of those imports coming from Russia. As a result of EEC decisions, there are major difficulties in connection with the Russian imports. A number of companies throughout the north-east of Scotland have no other fish but cod from Russia as their staple product.
The regulations that now apply to fish freezer vessels have meant that those vessels are no longer landing fish in the United Kingdom. The industry is finding it difficult to understand why the United Kingdom is applying those regulations much harder and tighter than any other EU country. In particular, we understand that all the other EU countries are still importing Russian fish. I have told the Minister that I want a meeting with him on this matter, but I would be interested to hear what he has to say on the issue.
Mr. Salmond: There is further irony in that point. As the hon. Gentleman said, other countries are still importing Russian fish, which means that the finished

361
product—the processed fish—will then be imported. We shall be eating the same fish as the Government have disqualified. The difference is that the jobs will be in other countries, not just European Union countries. It seems ridiculous for the Government to allow that to continue.
Mr. Doran: I understand that point. It is important to examine the situation. As I understand it, Russian fish is still being imported into other EU countries. It is difficult for fish processors in north-east Scotland to obtain supplies from elsewhere, even at the high prices that some importers are prepared to charge because they know that there is a gap in the market. I would appreciate it if the Minister would comment on that.
I will be brief because I know that many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I should like to refer to the efforts being made by councils in the north-east of Scotland in relation to the fish industry. The three local authorities in my area—Aberdeen city council, Aberdeenshire council and Moray council—have recently formed a joint fisheries partnership. The aim of that partnership is to improve the area's ability to attract new industry connected with the fishing industry and to improve the safety, the image and the profile of the fishing industry.
The Lord Provost of Aberdeen city council has begun chairing a regular meeting with leading fishing industry figures. The city is contributing to a massive change in the image and servicing of the industry. For example, it has undertaken an improvement in the harbour area, in which the fish processing industry is situated. It is co-operating with the local harbour board to upgrade the Aberdeen fish market, mainly to improve the image but also to introduce health and safety measures that will place the city's facilities among the leaders in Europe in terms of the services provided and the quality of the fish that passes through the market. A new dress code and a new hygiene code have been introduced. The city council has taken the view that it is an important industry for the city. As I have said, about 3,500 fish processing jobs are involved there and the council is making magnificent efforts.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. As I said earlier, it is a novel experience for me, on my return to the House, to find the annual fishing debate to be constructive and reasonable. I hope that that will continue in the future.
5.27 pm
Mr. John Townend: In their election manifesto, the Government said that they would work for the reform of the common fisheries policy. For fishing ports such as Bridlington, which I have the honour to represent, that is vital. If there is to be a fishing industry after 2002, we need reform of the CFP.
The Government have been asked on several occasions what they intend to do for fisheries during the United Kingdom presidency. No answer was given by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but the Parliamentary Secretary did give an answer on 3 November. When the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) asked about the Council of Ministers meeting on 3 October, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"I made it clear that the United Kingdom would seek to reach an agreement during its Presidency of the European Union next year"—[Official Report, 3 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 37.]
362
to phase out the use of drift nets. We know that the issue of drift nets is important, but when the British fishing industry is collapsing by the day and we are told that during its presidency the UK will concentrate on drift nets, one must question the priorities.
I suppose we should be grateful for the fact that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), was clear about what the Government are doing about reform because he said that there will be no opportunity to revise that fishing policy for some years. That is a lot of hope for the fishing industry.
Following discussions on quota hoppers, the Government have said that they intend to "strengthen the economic benefits" that countries derive from their quotas. It is time that the Government understood that the national allocation of quota is a discriminatory derogation terminating in the year 2002. That is a mistake that we Conservatives made. A derogation cannot be reformed; it simply expires. We are left with the task of trying to obtain a new derogation, which will become increasingly difficult.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman may have been daydreaming when I mentioned the priorities for the UK presidency, which included enforcement, marketing and preparing for the debate on common fisheries policy changes in 2002. The principle of relative stability is not a derogation and will not expire in 2002 unless there is a majority vote against it.
Mr. Townend: The question of fishing up to our coasts is a derogation. The Government say that they will apply effective controls of fishing efforts. That is probably why, in respect of decommissioning, licences have been split from track records. The Government know that the track record is the valuable part and want the industry to decommission itself or fall into foreign hands. Decommissioning is cheap, and will allow the Treasury to meet its targets for economic and monetary union. However, the track record is the fishing effort. Fishing effort will not be reduced by taking a vehicle out of service and allowing the catch allocation to go to others. That is nonsense.
The Minister talked about black fish. Lord Sewel, a Scottish Office Minister, has made it clear that the Government's aim is to clamp down on black fish. We should not forget what black fish are: the over-quota landing of species caught as part of a mixture of species. It is illegal, but what is the alternative? Dumping tens of thousands of fish into the sea to pollute the ocean is not conservation—it is nonsense.
It is Government policy to agree to more effective conservation measures. What went wrong on 30 October when for three species of fish the minimum landing size was reduced well below the breeding size? The reason given, along with the discarding rules, was the need to reduce the quantity of fish discarded—on paper, not in practice. Any fool can reduce discards on paper. One can make them nil if the minimum landing size is a tiddler. The Government made a big mistake by taking down the sizes for two flat fish: plaice to 22 cm and megrim to 20 cm. They should know that those fish have no swim bladders. If the juvenile fish they now want to market were returned to the water immediately under the present

363
discarding rules, the majority would live. It is round fish with swim bladders that die, because their bladders burst coming up through the pressure zone. That is why they float belly up when discarded for seagulls to attack. The Government regard it as acceptable to catch juvenile fish below breeding size because they say that it is wasteful to require the discarding of fish that are unmarketable.
We talk about the common application of the rules. As a member of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, I go to Strasbourg and Paris regularly. One has only to walk around the fish markets to see the minuscule fish on sale there. The Danes were correct to vote against the conservation measures.
The Government say that they want to improve the way in which quotas are managed. The way the Government are going, there will be no UK quota. Whatever the Minister says, it will cease in 2003 because we shall have a permit system then. We have now accepted that.
Finally, the Government want a greater regional dimension to the CFP. I forecast that that will involve the same regions that the United Kingdom will be broken up into as we become a Europe of regions in a federal state. It is no good giving us nonsense about regional management being the same as coastal state control. The one hands over the competence to organise fisheries to Brussels, which the Government seem to agree with, while the other, which the industry wants, gives the competence to coastal states.
If they are honest, the Government see no possibility of reforming the CFP to the benefit of fishermen. On 11 November in the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Minister questioned whether we could get Spain to vote for a package of measures that went directly against its interests.
Mr. Morley: It has a veto.
Mr. Townend: The Minister is right. The answer is that there will be no reform of the CFP for the benefit of the British fishermen. Nor will a further discriminative derogation be obtained, except perhaps for six-mile and partial six to 12-mile limits. The other nations will extract an enormous price from the United Kingdom for those 52 votes.
The Government have failed on another election promise. They are going to let the advantage of the six-month presidency slip through their fingers. They will let the British fishing industry sink because little can be done with 10 votes. They are merely office boys carrying out their master's instructions. For that, they are prepared to see a vital national interest disappear beneath the waves.
There is only one real culprit in the decline of the fishing industry: the European Union. The Minister mentioned that things were not always right in countries outside the CFP. He is correct. The Canadians mishandled the situation off the Newfoundland banks, but at least a nation state can impose a proper management system. If our fishing industry could enjoy the prosperity of those
364
of Norway and Iceland, our fishermen would be much happier. It is a betrayal of this country, of our fishing industry and of a great national resource—
Mr. Mitchell: Who did it?
Mr. Townend: The guilty men are my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the late Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. One accepted the fisheries policy when we came in and the other refused to deal with it when we renegotiated. Fish are an important national resource. It is nonsense that North sea oil is a British resource but that the fish swimming around the oil rigs are a European resource.
I hate to say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), but we lost every fishing seat of any size at the general election, with the exception of mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). If we are to win those seats back, we must change our policy. We must stop looking at Europe through rose-coloured spectacles. We must accept that our national interest is the repatriation of the CFP.
5.37 pm
Mrs. Christine Butler: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate. It is a privilege to speak in that House. I am proud to represent the people of Castle Point and greatly honoured by their will to have me serve as their Member of Parliament.
In 1992, my predecessor, Robert Spink, became Member of Parliament for what was considered a safe Conservative seat. He became a parliamentary private secretary and I know that he looked forward to a long parliamentary career. Despite his deep disappointment at losing his seat, he was gracious in defeat. He was the first to shake my hand after the result and I wish to put on record my respect for the dignity that he accorded public life that night.
I also pay tribute to Lord Braine of Wheatley, a former Father of the House, whom many of my constituents remember with affection simply as Bernard Braine. He was a Member of Parliament for more than 40 years, withstanding the boundary changes that saw the creation of the new seat of Castle Point from the former Essex, South-East constituency.
I would not like to forget another of my predecessors, Captain Ray Gunter. He was first elected to Parliament in the Labour landslide of 1945. Ray's service to this country during the second world war, his commitment to his constituents throughout his time as a Member of Parliament, and his later contribution to the trades union movement have become an outstanding testimony to his belief in a better future. From that line, I am the first Labour Member of Parliament in almost half a century to represent South Benfleet, Thundersley, Hadleigh and Canvey Island, all of which form the constituency of Castle Point.
The constituency of Castle Point and Castle Point borough council were created on conterminous boundaries in the 1970s. Their name is derived from the well-known landmarks of Hadleigh castle and Canvey point. My constituency lies along the east side of the Thames estuary. It is within the port of London, but just outside the Thames corridor. It has grown from tiny townships

365
and villages to a present population of about 85,000 people. Its rapid post-war growth has been due in no small measure to the resettlement of people from east and north London, who wanted to live in more pleasant surroundings without entirely breaking their links with London. Every day, the London-Tilbury-Southend line carries thousands of my constituents in and out of London to work.
Castle Point now forms part of the larger conurbation of south-east Essex. Its post-war history has defined it primarily as a commuting area, without large-scale industry or commerce. It has one of the highest rates of home ownership and dependency on the private motor car in England. It has grown, however, and been left to get on as best it may without any foreseen need for help or intervention.
The time for change has come. Our roads are bursting at the seams; our young people need more help into training and post-16 education opportunities; we cannot meet the demand for affordable homes to rent; and 55 per cent. of our work force have to travel out of the area to make a living. Most of all, Castle Point needs a better balance between employment opportunities, patterns of transport and housing and amenity provision. I look forward to the challenge of renewal and regeneration while protecting those assets that we hold dear.
One of the jewels in our crown must surely be the ancient ruins of Hadleigh castle, which are perched high on the downs above Benfleet Creek. It offers unparalleled views over much of my constituency and across the river Thames to the fields of Kent. To the west of the castle, the great oil refineries of Shell and BP at Coryton dominate the flat landscape of Canvey Island. To the east, beyond the grazing marshes and saltings, is the wider estuary and the southern North sea. Whatever the season, it is always a wonderful place to be. Such an abrupt meeting of times past and present gives pause for thought to the future.
From that high point one can see, morning and evening, slowly moving convoys of cars attempting the daily journey to and from work. One can also make out the vast areas of housing on Canvey Island, developed from the old plotlands in a piecemeal approach to planning which is the bane of its current residents. My constituents know what it is to suffer from poor planning. We treasure the benefits that we have accrued through foresight and we bemoan the effects of the lack of it.
Hadleigh castle stands proud as a symbol of the indomitable spirit of the people who live in my constituency. They want changes that can bring a better quality of life and a more sustainable future. No borough can achieve on its own solutions to problems that have a regional dimension, be they connected with transport, planning or economic development. That is why I have such an unshakable belief in the invaluable support that a regional development agency, working within a national policy framework, can offer to smaller districts.
Castle Point needs to attract investment to provide work for a mix of skills and age groups. Through the local plan, we are beginning the process of regeneration. Acres of derelict land on Canvey Island are now designated for retail employment use and for amenity and environmental upgrading. An outward and forward-looking approach has been the key to that new planning framework. It is an
366
approach that recognises the inherent possibilities within one's own area, understands its needs and looks for partners in a mutual venture.
A pressing task before us all is the creation of jobs within a sustainable economic and environmental future. It is no mean task, but I am excited by the steps that the Government are taking. At last, we have leadership aimed at the longer-term economic policy; we have leadership in transport; at last, we have leadership in tackling environmental problems at home and abroad; and at long last, we have a Britain that recognises the value of its people through its employment, training and education policies. The framework we are now setting nationally will give confidence to putative investors who are looking for stable economic conditions, good industrial relations, a skilled work force and a fine place to locate.
Change does not necessarily mean replacement. It is also about the growth of indigenous enterprise, renewed effort towards worthwhile conservation and a greater respect for nature and heritage.
Besides the container vessels and barges trading in the Port of London there are still small fishing boats, the defiant remains of a beleaguered industry. It is one of our oldest industries, which dates back to Saxon times, and we are determined to keep it and strengthen it. Fishing on the Thames will not survive without a joint approach, and that is why the inshore fishermen of Castle Point, along with those from Kent and the rest of Essex, are as one behind the strategy for coastal state management.
We owe a great deal to our intrepid fishermen, who refused to give in when their living became so precarious. They are encouraged by the efforts now being made on their behalf by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I know that there is a common understanding of the best way forward. As in many other policy areas, the watchword must be sustainability. That means better management of inshore fisheries and ecosystems so that in the long term we are replenishing stock and not decimating it through an outdated and inadequate approach that had more to do with political trade-offs than science and common sense.
The new approach must be based on co-operation within the industry between member states. There are signs that that is beginning to happen and I hope that sound arguments will eventually win everywhere.
I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Minister has had to say today. He has offered us an improvement on what we had and an improvement on what some might have expected. I am particularly encouraged by his focus on several dimensions that are important to fisheries policy. For example, I am encouraged by a sound approach designed to improve standards of enforcement, which will include better monitoring and tougher policies. I am also encouraged by the much more holistic approach to stock management than we have seen before and the more positive yet resolute approach within Europe.
I am delighted to have been included in this debate. I wish my hon. Friend well as he negotiates for British fishermen agreements based on sustainability and better enforcement in days to come.
5.47 pm
Mr. Andrew George: I am honoured to be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on her first-class maiden speech. I do not

367
know that part of the country well, but I gained a clear impression not only of the eyesores but of the attractions of her constituency. I am sure that she will make a good job of representing the people of that area. I share her enthusiasm for protecting the interests of the inshore fishing fleet. She was right to emphasise the importance of that.
I should also like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on introducing this annual debate for the first time as Minister with responsibility for the fisheries. I join him in congratulating the industry on continuing to make constructive suggestions and on entering into constructive dialogue with the Government and the Opposition parties to bring forward positive proposals for future development of the industry. I welcome much but not all of what the Minister brought us in his statement, but I certainly welcome efforts to control industrial fishing—something which the industry has long looked for.
A fundamental point that will emerge from the debate, and which the Minister must recognise, is the fact that the industry will not welcome his proposals for the pelagic sector, as they will have a devastating impact on it. It is important that no rash decisions are made on the pelagic sector. The Minister must discuss the matter with the industry and make progress on the exchange of letters about quota hopping that he mentioned earlier. He must do that before he makes a final decision and statement on the future for the pelagic sector under MAGP IV.
The memorandum that underlies the debate—and indeed the debate itself so far—reads like a mouthwatering medley of fish from the menu of the many highly acclaimed fish restaurants in Cornwall. I strongly recommend that right hon. and hon. Members present visit the many and various restaurants there.
Mr. Jack: Which ones?
Mr. George: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman after the debate. This is not an opportunity to advertise specific restaurants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, go on."] I recommend hon. Members to come to my part of the country and enjoy the many high-quality fish restaurants there. No doubt such restaurants are not confined to Cornwall but exist throughout the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has already read, covered, digested and repeated much of the briefing from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. There is much detail about the proposed amendments to the total allowable catches for each species, on which the Minister will negotiate tomorrow. It is not possible to go through every aspect of that again.
I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Fylde said about the inconsistencies in some of the proposed advice, but I cannot agree with the Conservative amendment. As we are supposed to be living in a country that has not only a new Labour new Government but—as from this autumn, I understand—a new and apologetic Conservative party, is it appropriate for the Conservatives to debate fishing in the House without first offering an apology for its treatment of the fishing industry in past years?
368
There are some important points of principle concerning the proposals for total allowable catches. I shall mention two. The first is the scientists' two-dimensional assessment of the way in which the fishing industry operates. Much of the science is based on single-species assessment and fails properly to recognise the reality of a mixed-catch industry.
That is nothing new. If I may draw the attention of the House to my part of the world again, I might mention that next week in Mousehole we shall be celebrating what is called Tom Bawcock's Eve. At this time of year, west Cornwall celebrates the time when, after starvation and poverty because of storms in the western approaches, Tom Bawcock went out from Mousehole, braved the storms and brought back seven sorts of fish. There are songs to remember that time and to celebrate the seven sorts of fish that he brought back. The occasion will be celebrated next week in the village, with the baking of many stargazy pies. I am sure that the Minister will know about them; the fishes' faces poke out of the pie.
Things have not changed, so science must develop more to reflect the realities of the industry. I believe that the Minister is aware of that. It is important that the scientific assessment of the way in which the industry operates should develop and become more sophisticated, to reflect the fact that many fishermen now rely on what we know as mixed catches and that it is difficult to direct oneself at one particular species.
It is also difficult to react to changes in the quota that are too dramatic—and there are some dramatic changes in the proposed total allowable catches that the Minister has announced. We need a longer-term perspective on stocks. There may be a 40 per cent. floor for TAC reductions, but the Minister must recognise that 40 per cent. represents a massive swing—a massive cut—for the affected fishermen. Short-term stock assessments lead to what the industry perceives as imperfect and erratic advice.
As the right hon. Member for Fylde said, there are sometimes erratic interpretations in connection with the proposals for cod and haddock in the North sea. There are many mixed fisheries and, as has been mentioned in connection with the west coast of Scotland saithe, they may be forced to respond simply by altering their discard levels. That will not necessarily reduce mortality rates even if it succeeds in reducing catch rates. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that that is an important point to take to the negotiations with his colleagues in Europe tomorrow. He should seek to redress that balance and deal with the problems that will inevitably arise.
For example, in area VII, at the port of Newlyn in my constituency, the potential loss of up to 40 per cent. of the megrim catch will mean that up to £1.3 million will go out of the local economy. Moreover, megrim underpin a wide range of mixed fisheries. That elaborates on the point that I made earlier. Not only will £1.3 million be lost to the local economy—directly to British fishermen—but there will be a knock-on effect in the local community.
Meanwhile, it has been announced today that in the Penzance and St. Ives travel-to-work areas in west Cornwall there has been a further 15 per cent. increase in unemployment. In other parts of the country, unemployment is ostensibly falling and there is a problem of overheating, even in the so-called south-west region,

369
of which Cornwall does not see itself as properly a part. In Cornwall, we still face the problem of continuing high and increasing unemployment. The news will hit the economy of west Cornwall harder than most other areas.
We shall have to look more closely at the Minister's statement on MAGP IV. I note that he did not use the phrase "days at sea" to describe effort control in the pelagic sector, but he must accept that there are implications for that sector and that, as a result of his proposals, days at sea could be restricted.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made the point effectively that, by using the review clause at the end of 1999, there will be an opportunity to review whether it is appropriate to manage the pelagic sector in that way. I know that the industry shares my concern about days at sea restrictions. If that is on the agenda, the Minister should realise that the pelagic fleet cannot be restricted in that way, because it must search grounds for days—even weeks—before it can start fishing. Such controls would be artificial, inappropriate and contradictory when the western mackerel stocks are to increase by up to 20 per cent.
I hope that the Minister accepts that decommissioning has been unequal across the fleet. Not only has there been a lack of pelagic involvement, but only two of the 600 vessels that have been decommissioned were Anglo-Spanish. What conclusions does the Minister draw from that? What action should we take?
That brings me to the issue of quota hoppers. The industry wants to know a great deal more about how the Government intend to deal with that problem. We must find a practical solution and not merely play games that fuel Europhobia or xenophobia. The Government should push this point very hard and use the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union to pursue the matter with great vigour.
We still do not know what progress has been made following the exchange of letters. I listened carefully to the Minister. He referred to the 1998 licences and suggested including clauses on the horsepower of boats. Clauses on the economic connection of boat to port could also be included. It is essential not to lose the opportunity to make progress, because this problem undermines the confidence of the industry and of British fishermen. We want to know what provisions the licences will contain and how soon such new clauses could be included. How does the Minister intend to implement and enforce his proposals? What is the likelihood of a legal challenge? How much support is there among other EU nations? What time scale does he propose? I hope that he will deal with those points in his winding-up speech, because the industry wants to know a great deal more.
I welcome the proposal to relate concerns about fishing management on a sustainable basis to the important issue of marine safety. I am deeply saddened to have brought to the House's attention the fishing tragedies that have occurred across the country. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) recently raised that issue to some effect.
I welcomed the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who is responsible for shipping, while the Minister was making his statement. There should be increasing co-operation with colleagues in that Department of the Environment, Transport and the
370
Regions and in the Department of Trade and Industry, given its role in registering the telecommunications agency.
This year, 11 lives have been lost at sea in the fishing industry. That is the seriousness of the problem in my constituency: we lose more lives at sea than on the roads. The problem is not just with the management of the industry, but with the management of sea safety. Four men have been missing for more than a month. They were on the Margaretha Maria, which is 75 ft trawler from Newlyn. The families of those men will be facing their first Christmas without their father or their husband. It is an incredibly difficult time, and sadly such incidents have occurred all too often. It is important for the Minister to work with his colleagues to find practical solutions to those problems.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fishing industry in Scotland is voicing great concern about the proposed closure of the Oban coastguard station and the Pentland station in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)? I hope that the Fisheries Minister will be involved, on behalf of fishermen, in the consultation process that the Shipping Minister announced yesterday.
Mr. George: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention, because it amplifies and supports my point. This problem should not be seen merely as a coastguard management issue, because it affects the management of the industry and it has a knock-on effect on sea safety. St. Ives has lost a number of coastguard look-outs in recent years, and that greatly concerns people in the industry.
The abortive attempt to produce a new code of practice for under 12 m vessels shows the importance of cross-departmental co-operation. Those proposals have gone back to the drawing board, but had there been greater interdepartmental co-operation and had the industry been able to give advice, we would have made progress on a new code of practice for marine safety.
The Minister mentioned the importance of developing still further satellite surveillance programmes. There is a connection, because it is not just a problem of fishing management, but of sea safety. An appropriate and well-managed expansion of the use of satellite surveillance will be of great interest to the Minister's colleagues in other Departments.
The debate should concentrate on and draw attention to the major and golden opportunity for Britain to push forward with and set the agenda for the reform of the common fisheries policy—and my goodness it needs reform.
Mr. Gill: In earlier fishing debates, the hon. Gentleman spoke about reform of the common fisheries policy. Has he considered that it is virtually impossible to get any meaningful reform of that policy because it is almost impossible to get enough nations to support radical proposals? The hon. Gentleman speaks of reform, but does he not appreciate that that is a complete cop-out?
Mr. George: That was a fascinating intervention. Meanwhile, back in the real world—
Mr. Gill: Tell us how we can get reform.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
Mr. George: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

371
One sure fire way to ensure that we do not get the co-operation of our European colleagues is to take the hon. Gentleman's attitude. If such attitudes prevail, obstacles will continue to be placed in our way.
Mr. Salmond: Of course it is difficult to get member states to agree, but not long ago the Spanish Government managed to get our Government's support for accelerated access to western waters. If there can be movement one way can there not be movement in the other?
Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is appropriate. Perhaps supporters of the previous Government should bear that point in mind when they speak about securing a better future for British fishermen. They should ask themselves why the Spanish fleet got access to western waters six years before there was any need for that fleet to have it. I should like to make progress because I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
As the Minister has said, if the common fisheries policy, with all its faults, did not exist, some international agreement or pan-European co-operation would be needed for fishing in international waters. In pursuing an agenda for the reform of the common fisheries policy during our six-months presidency, I hope that the Minister and the Government will not stand back with the usual British sense of fair play but will be robust in their efforts to secure fair play for British fishermen.
Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. George: No, because I want to make progress.
The agenda for reform must include equality in monitoring and enforcement by member states, and transparency in implementation by member states of MAGP IV. It must secure a practical solution to the issue of quota hopping and set an agenda for effective reform of the policy on the principles of sustainability, decentralisation, equality of monitoring and enforcement. It must promote and protect the interests of our inshore fleet.
The Minister spoke about the need to decommission the tuna drift net fishery. I have raised the matter with him before. Such decommissioning can happen only if the Minister recognises that there must be adequate compensation and retraining to ensure that people are not pushed out of fishing altogether but are allowed to develop other forms of fishing. They are pursuing species that are off quota.
Mr. Hayes: I was inspired to re-enter the Chamber by the length and honesty of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I must press him on how robust he is prepared to be. He spoke about a more robust approach and has given illustrations. His Cornish fishermen and mine in Lincolnshire will want to know how robust he and his party are prepared to be. For example, would they be prepared to say that there will be no treaty without an end to quota hopping? It is fine to play the game of being robust but people want to know how far the Liberal Democrats and people such as the hon. Gentleman are prepared to go in defence of the national interest.
Mr. George: My party would not support the hon. Gentleman's proposal. We took the seat in St. Ives
372
because of Conservative Europhobia and Euroscepticism and not in spite of them. People have seen through that line.
I should like to draw attention to the importance of protecting the inshore fishery. Significantly, the south-west mackerel handline fishery in Cornwall closed down last night. The irony is that it is the most sustainable of all fisheries and such closures should not happen. If that fishery cannot be taken off quota, with conditions, which is what I should like, the Minister must hold back or set aside quota that can be made available later in the year if it is needed. I hope that he will address the importance of protecting not only the inshore fleet and the artisan fleet but the mackerel handliners which are the most sustainable of all fisheries.
We urge the Government forcefully to press for the optimum fishing opportunities for British fishermen and to base their demands on sustainable management, effective enforcement and a recognition of regional differences in the fisheries. In this traditional annual debate on the industry, we ask the Government to recognise their obligation to drive forward the fishing debate during their presidency to ensure equality of monitoring and enforcement by member states and transparency in the implementation of MAGP IV. They should clarify with the industry progress on the exchange of letters about quota hopping. We must set the agenda for the reform of the common fisheries policy and ensure that it is based on a decentralised system. We must incorporate closed areas, make effective use of satellite surveillance and protect the inshore industry.
I have raised some technical points on next year's proposed tax and I encourage the Minister to listen closely to the industry's views on his proposals. He should recognise the potentially devastating impact of those proposals on the pelagic sector and discuss that with the industry before he implements them. The next six months will present Britain with a golden opportunity to drive forward the necessary reforms to the common fisheries policy. We cannot afford to lose that opportunity.
6.18 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I compliment my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on a fine maiden speech. I wish her many years of fruitful labour on behalf of her constituents, whom I have no doubt she will ably represent.
The Minister's opening speech was the proverbial curate's egg. Much was welcome, but some aspects caused great concern. On behalf of the Northern Ireland fishing industry, I particularly welcome the lack of further reduction in the demersal and nephrops fleet, and the apparent abandonment of the concept of limitation of days at sea. In the limited time that the House expects one to impose by self-discipline, I shall refer only to matters that particularly affect Northern Ireland fishing.
I remind the Minister that the Northern Ireland fishing industry is especially vulnerable in two aspects. First, it has already done its share in terms of conservation and the development of fishing stocks by contributing, from its own resources, a 40 per cent. reduction in fishing effort over the past few years. We would like the other members of the European Union to catch up before any further obstacles are put in the way of our local fishing fleets.
The industry in Northern Ireland is basically a coastal industry, mainly confined to the Irish sea. The communities that foster the ports of Kilkeel, Ardglass and

373
Portavogie are totally dependent on it, and if the fishing industry were to collapse, so would those communities. There is no other sustainable employment in those areas, so this is not a matter of a potential threat to one specific economic sector, but a threat to the entire economic life of such areas. That is why I emphasise the contribution already made to conservation by the Northern Ireland fishing fleet, and hope that sympathetic consideration will be given to further development of the industry, which is currently on a knife edge.
Of particular concern to the Northern Ireland fishing fleet is whiting in area VIIa. It would seem that, during 1997, fishermen have consistently reported large shoals in the western Irish sea. I know as well as anyone what a fisherman's tale can be, and, in reality, that is almost an unprovable experience.
Scientifically speaking, Irish sea whiting has been on a roller coaster for the past few years. In 1996, the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management recommended an increase of 22.5 per cent. in the total allowable catch; and for 1997, it recommended a cut of 28 per cent. Unfortunately, the scientific community now recommends a cut in the TAC for 1998 of about 49 per cent., from the present 7,500 tonnes to 3,800, although I know that that suggestion has been mitigated by the European Commission to a reduced level of 4,500 tonnes.
I cannot understand what made the ACFM and the European Commission take that course when, according to the ACFM, the stock is considered to be within safe biological limits and spawning stock biomass appears to be stable. If the ACFM says that, why is it recommending a 49 per cent. cut? That requires immediate further investigation. Irish sea haddock in area VII also seems to be more common than scientific evidence would suggest. The restrictions are imposed because of scientific evidence that seems to be at variance with the experience of local fishermen.
Although herring fishing is not a major factor in the overall industry, the local fleet is nevertheless facing a considerable and continuing problem relating to the closure of the Douglas box off the south-east coast of the Isle of Man. If some effort were made by the Minister and his Ministry to reduce the time and the extent of the closure, it might provide an alternative crop for local fishermen in Northern Ireland.
The other question I shall briefly address is the Hague preference—that annual problem afflicting Northern Ireland fishermen in particular. As in previous years, it is likely that the Government of the Republic of Ireland will invoke the Hague preference in respect of Irish sea cod, whiting and plaice. Given that an extremely low whiting TAC is likely to be set, that will mean even further erosion of the UK's Irish sea whiting allocation, and also the probability that the Republic of Ireland will have less whiting to swap in the coming season.
Will the Minister address that problem, which might be resolved by way of bilateral agreement between the UK Government and that of the Republic of Ireland? It should be possible to come to some rational arrangement that could be automatically put in train year by year, rather than the Dutch option, which offers unpredictability year after year.
I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to regional specialisation in the Northern Ireland fishing industry. I am not asking for special treatment for
374
Northern Ireland's industry, as distinct from that of the UK, but for it to be looked at separately, in the sense that it has a dimension separate from that of certain other UK regions.
As I said, Northern Ireland's fishing industry is predominantly coastal, but it has been scientifically recognised that Northern Ireland's fishing grounds contain a biomass unique in European coastal waters. The confluence of the seas, both north and south, create unique conditions that have never really been recognised in terms of the availability of species within the main fishing grounds of the Northern Ireland fleet. Will the Minister take that aboard as a separate subject for investigation?
I remind the Minister of a statement made in 1992 in a European Commission report, "Regional Socio-economic Studies in the Fishing Sector". That report said in respect of Northern Ireland:
"There are currently very few alternative employment opportunities. Perhaps this is the one area where the maintenance of fish and the related industry employment should be a priority."
In that context, and in view of the coastal nature of the Northern Ireland fishing fleet and the unique breeding and fishing grounds, will the Minister look at the possibility not of giving our fleet special treatment, but of making it the subject of separate assessment, distinct from other regions in the UK, in order to see whether a different viability attaches to the Northern Ireland industry?
Those are the highlights of the non-national points I wish to make. Time allows me only to pinpoint them on behalf of the Northern Ireland fishing industry. I should like to think that, when he goes to Brussels—I think tomorrow—the Minister will be accompanied by his noble Friend Lord Dubs, who is the Minister in the Northern Ireland Office responsible for agriculture and fisheries. That practice has proved successful in previous years, and I should be disappointed if Lord Dubs were not personally present to sustain and advance the special interests of the Northern Ireland fishing industry.
Finally, I ask again whether there can be a bilateral arrangement with the Republic of Ireland in respect of the transfer and swapping of quotas with the Northern Ireland fishing fleet, so as to allow a more measured and more permanent relationship in terms of that specific variation of the invoking of the Hague preference.
6.29 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on her maiden speech. When she rose to speak, I and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) hastily compared notes to find out where Castle Point was. We need not have bothered, because in her excellent speech she gave us a tour d'horizon of her constituency. Those in the Chamber who did not know where Castle Point was, should now be very familiar with it because of the hon. Lady's eloquent speech about her constituency.
It is fair to say that fishing is not the dominant concern in the hon. Lady's constituency—but having achieved a 17 per cent. swing at the election, she is obviously excellent at fishing for votes. If she turns in more performances like this evening's, I am sure that her constituents will reward her with continuing and even more comfortable majorities.
I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about the loss of the Sapphire. I have said some deservedly harsh things about two of his Government colleagues because of their

375
attitude to my constituents in this tragedy—but they would not apply to the Minister, who has a tremendous depth of knowledge of and is sincere about the fishing industry. His remarks were gratefully received and appreciated, and I will relay them to my constituents.
I suspect that the Minister has argued for a decent amount of time for this debate, so it is important that Front and Back Benchers show some restraint, to ensure that everyone who wants to speak gets the opportunity. I shall quickly run through a number of the points made in the debate and then raise two main points of concern, which I am sure the Minister will want to answer.
First, in an intervention in the Minister's speech, I raised the issue of the cod and haddock quotas. There is a clear inconsistency in the scientific treatment of those species. It is vital for the confidence that working fishermen have in scientific advice that the Minister clarifies the matter. From his quite sympathetic response, I take it that he will work to secure some improvement in the North sea haddock quota. A number of devices are available to him in the negotiations, so I send him off to them with the plea that he seriously considers the matter, as there appears to be a virtually inexplicable difference in the treatment of those species in the North sea.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will confirm that there are a number of species in the North sea—whiting—and off the west coast where the Hague preference could be invoked. It is vital that it is invoked. That concession was won for the United Kingdom by the then Irish Foreign Minister, later Taoiseach, Garret Fitzgerald in 1976—if my memory serves me right. It has been extremely useful with a number of species over the years, so it should be well oiled and kept in use. I hope that it will be invoked in the negotiations for the relevant stocks.
Mr. Morley: On the hon. Gentleman's question about North sea haddock and the scientific difference in the treatment of cod and haddock, my information is that the increase in the North sea cod TAC reflects the considerable reduction in cod fishing in recent years. There has been an increase for haddock, and the TAC is now 115,000 tonnes, which is 5,000 tonnes more than the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management suggested. There has also been agreement on an increased quota transfer with Norway for haddock. On the hon. Gentleman's point about adjusting the quota by further adjusting industrial by-catch assumptions, that is something that we will do in the Council. I hope that that answers his points.
Mr. Salmond: I welcome that information, and I will leave the matter to the Minister, given his sympathetic response.
A number of issues have not been mentioned in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has been pursuing the question of the exclusion order that affected the Moray firth fishery. The difficulty appears to be that, although we have always had the principle of the polluter pays, in this case it has become impossible to identify the polluter. As a result, the fishing industry has had great difficulty with its compensations claims.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: This is a matter of deep concern, which must be dealt with by the Government.
376
The oil and gas industries in the North sea are obviously important as well. However, where fishermen do not have the facility to claim compensation, could the oil companies establish a contingency fund to help? It is an important matter for the fishermen in my area.
Mr. Salmond: I shall relay my hon. Friend's question to the Minister; I am sure that he will answer it when he replies to the debate. I rely on my hon. Friend's ingenuity in these matters to get her point across.
Another point that I wish to raise cropped up earlier in the debate, in the remarkable, amnesiac speech of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). The Conservative party has got a grip on the fact that the Government have been in office for seven months, but it seems to have forgotten the 18 preceding years. The claim is that the UK has been taken to the cleaners over the Atlanto-Scandian herring distribution—and that is correct. However, as I pointed out earlier, it was a Conservative Government who were first taken to the cleaners.
I want to raise with the Minister the obvious point that it was the efforts of the Scottish pelagic fleet—which, on the basis of the Minister's remarks, will be under great pressure—that secured 30 per cent. of the whole European quota of the new stock coming into use. Therefore, to get only 19 per cent. of the quota allocation seems a considerable gap. Perhaps the Minister will use his good offices to argue that point strongly, especially given the pressures on the pelagic fleet.
I could raise a whole range of other issues, but they have already been dealt with by other hon. Members. I want to concentrate on two main issues, one of which arises directly from the Minister's statement. The other relates to the UK presidency, European representation and the way forward.
On the question of MAGP IV, apart from saying, as other Ministers have, that Tory spending plans have left this Government in a straitjacket, the Minister did not quite make an argument that this part of the Opposition could accept—or, I suspect, many of the Government's Back Benchers. The good news for the white fish fleet in the near-achievement of MAGP IV targets is that that should open the door once again to structural funding.
Scotland is at the cutting edge of the UK fishing fleet in its capital mobilisation and renewability, but on average the fleet is 25 years old. It has to compete with fleets across Europe that are much more modern and have had reinvestment in the industry, which many sectors of our fishing fleet have not had for some considerable time. There is a safety issue which should be recognised. Older boats and younger skippers are going to ever deeper waters, and that raises major safety questions.
There is also an economic aspect. I hope that the Minister will at least say that, despite the self-imposed spending straitjacket, the whole question of structural funding, which could be opened up in the Community, and the possibility of a scrap-and-build approach, which has been used successfully in other European countries—something which the Minister mentioned often when he was in opposition—could form part of the strategy for the white fish fleet now that the structural aspect opens the door to reinvestment.
Mr. Morley: I understand exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. We have looked into the issue

377
of EU rules on structural funds for vessel improvements. Currently, the global MAGP target must be met before the member state is eligible for funds; so, although we have met our target in some segments, until we meet our global target we are not eligible.
Mr. Salmond: I understand that point. It bring me neatly on to the pressure on the pelagic sector. I can understand the encouragement that the Minister takes from the fact that he can lift the threat of a further-days-at-sea policy or other unpopular effort restrictions on the white fish fleet.
However, I have a tiny suspicion that the very small number of pelagic boats will be convenient whipping boys to carry the burden of capacity reduction. If my quick calculations are correct—and they may be wrong—and if I follow the Minister's logic, we are talking about capacity reductions of a third or more over the four years remaining in the MAGP target. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point.
As has been pointed out, in the North sea, herring quotas are up by 60 per cent. and western mackerel quotas are up by 20 per cent. People who work in the pelagic sector will find it virtually impossible to understand the huge capacity reduction in their fleet if the quota assessment is moving in the opposite direction.
I return to this important point. Considering the nature of the pelagic fleet and of the herring and mackerel species, and the wide fluctuations in those species, is it at all sensible to use the blunt instrument of MAPG targets? Is a more sophisticated approach possible?
If the Minister can find the ingenuity almost to spirit away the target shortfall in relation to the white fish fleet, I am sure that, if he examines how other countries in Europe address the question, he will not find it beyond the bounds of possibility to avoid the severe disablement of our pelagic fleet and its capacity to compete with other pelagic fleets at the cutting edge of the European Union fishing market.
This is very much a Scottish matter. Eighty-five per cent. of pelagic capacity is in the tank ship Scottish fleet. I would not like to think that this Scottish matter was being placed in the firing line because it squares circles elsewhere. Although the number of its boats is limited, the pelagic fleet is hugely important for a growing onshore industry, as processing has replaced the capacity that used to be taken up by klondykers and other processors.
We have at last been building an impressive home pelagic processing industry. If it cannot be guaranteed the supplies—much of the industry uses dedicated supplies—not hundreds of boats and hundreds of jobs in the pelagic catching sector, but thousands of jobs in the pelagic processing sector, might be at risk. I will leave it there, except to say that the pelagic fleet seems to be in the firing line. I hope that a way can be found to avoid the blunt instrument of widespread capacity reductions. On the face of it, if quotas were properly implemented, the fleet's capacity could perhaps be well sustained.
One thing was slightly missing from the Minister's speech. I understand that this debate has to go through the detail of quota assessments, but—this is not too harsh a criticism of the Minister—I was looking for a bit more vision in relation to the direction of Community policy. The Minister and I agree that, in 1992, during the last United Kingdom presidency, a magnificent opportunity
378
was lost to tackle some of the fundamental underlying issues in the fishing industry. I would hate to think that hopes and opportunities are going to be lost again.
It is not comforting that one of my European colleagues has told me that the United Kingdom representation documents for the presidency apparently contain no mention of fishing as a substantive issue. That does not give me confidence that the Minister has succeeded in persuading his colleagues of the critical nature of the industry and of the fact that, in the run-up to 2002, the presidency should be used to try to shape policy.
I should have liked to hear a bit more about progress on quota hopping. I have spoken to the Minister about the suggestions from the Mallaig and North-West Fishing Association on whether the Marine Safety Agency and safety aspects could be brought into play in relation to quota hoppers.
I should also like to have heard a lot more about coastal states management—the decentralisation of fisheries policy—which many of us believe offers great hope for a much more sensible ordering of our affairs in terms of European fisheries. Other European countries substantially support that approach. I should like to hear a bit more about the Minister's thoughts on the matter.
Figures on the relative weight of the Scottish fleet in the United Kingdom fishing industry show that the Scottish fleet accounts for 67 per cent. of UK landings, 57 per cent. of the UK industry's value, and 46 per cent. of UK vessels over 10 m, against 45 per cent. for England and Wales. By any measurement and definition, the Scottish industry constitutes the bulk of the UK fishing fleet. As a percentage of gross domestic product, it is 14 times more important to the Scottish economy than to the UK economy as a whole. Fishing is a dominating powerhouse industry in Scotland, and should be viewed as such.
Tomorrow, we expect the publication of the devolution Bill. Press leaks tell us that the role that was envisaged for the Scottish Parliament within a European context is to be played down, diminished, or even removed entirely from the Bill. I therefore hope that a Scottish colleague will whisper in the Minister's ear and give me some reassurance that, within the context of the European negotiations, the new Scottish Parliament will above all have a significant, continuing and entrenched role in fishing policy. Despite the individual ability of the Minister with responsibility for fisheries, it is vital for Scotland's fishing communities that they are represented by the Scottish Parliament, so that they are never again subjected to the disarray and humiliation which has been their lot over the past 18 years.
6.45 pm
Mrs. Joan Humble: As one new Member to another, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on her maiden speech. We have both attended virtually every meeting in the House on the fishing industry, adding to our local knowledge by understanding some of the larger complexities. I look forward to attending many more meetings with her.
I congratulate the Government on the progress made so far, and I welcome the Minister's speech. I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this important debate,

379
which is vital for my constituents in Fleetwood. It is especially vital that the Government negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen.
I should like to outline why the debate is important for my constituents. Fleetwood bounced back from the loss of its distant water grounds. During the mid to late 1980s, it had a fleet of about 60 inshore and home water trawlers, which made a significant contribution to the landings at the port and utilised many local services.
Unfortunately, in the early 1990s, vessels were sold or decommissioned, or the owners of the vessels went into receivership. Now, there are fewer than 30 trawlers and a further eight have been the subject of successful decommissioning bids in the current round. Of those, three have already been decommissioned. Further contraction of the indigenous fleet will threaten the entire sector at Fleetwood. We are at the "critical mass" level of activity. That is why it is vital for my constituents that the Government negotiate a fair deal for them and ensure that the industry continues.
The issue of the availability of quota to the local fish producers organisation is vital. Against a background of losses of quota in recent years, it is working hard to make the most of the available quota. It is essential, therefore, that the track record attaching to decommissioned vessels at the Fleetwood PO is not lost to the organisation. It is hoped that the recently introduced facility of effectively trading in track record will not further reduce the quota available to the PO. However, I am disturbed to find that that appears to be happening already.
Some 40 per cent. of our entitlement to Dover sole has been purchased by an entrepreneur, who is interested not in the boats, but in their licence entitlement. He has taken the fish away from Fleetwood, although he lives in my constituency. He has transferred management of the fish to a producer organisation that is noted for acting for Dutch quota hoppers. I have already raised my concerns about the impact of the loss of track record with the Minister, and I am sure that he will take them into account in any future decommissioning schemes.
All that makes the new year allocation of quota a major concern for my constituents. Fleetwood has a low quota allocation. I understand that further reductions in cod, whiting and saithe quotas are proposed for area VI, with some increase in the haddock quota, and that reductions are proposed in whiting and sole quotas for area VIIa, with a welcome increase in haddock and plaice quotas. While there are clearly some concerns about reductions in some of the allocations, my fishermen welcome increases elsewhere.
Without sufficient landings, we will not sustain the port's various businesses. I make no apologies for my special pleading for Fleetwood. Other hon. Members can argue for their areas, but I am arguing for the fishermen of Fleetwood and the industries connected with their landings.
I believe that there are reasons for allocating additional quota to a port such as Fleetwood to prevent the total collapse of the fishing sector. One means of achieving that is being developed by my local fish forum. It concerns the quota released by vessels being broken up under the decommissioning scheme. Instead of being sold on or reallocated to POs on a pro rata basis, which in some
380
cases means only a few extra cases of fish to each port, it would become the subject of a socio-economic bid, just as cash resources are bid for under the single regeneration budget or city challenge.
I hope that the Minister will consider a variety of ways to ensure sustainable fisheries management and effective enforcement and that he will acknowledge the special place of communities such as Fleetwood.
I welcome the Minister's saying that he is considering the possibility of designated ports. The issue has not yet been raised in the debate. I know that some of the catchers in Fleetwood object to the proposals for designated ports; nevertheless, the Fleetwood fish forum and my local authority—Wyre borough council—fully support the idea, to protect the future of the port and to develop far more effective enforcement measures.
The system would also make a significant contribution to the emerging philosophy of the regional management of fisheries, with designated ports becoming regional hubs, and their port assets and shore-based businesses being utilised more effectively. Certainly, the fish dock at Fleetwood is a designated facility, used exclusively by fishing vessels. That is not the case in all ports. I look forward to hearing more details of the Government's proposals in the new year.
Finally, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look positively at a variety of options available to halt the decline in my local fishing industry, especially given the previous Government's appalling record. Let us hope that we arrive at a solution while ports such as Fleetwood still have a fishing industry to benefit from them.
6.51 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on a first-rate speech. It was first rate because it lasted six minutes, not 30. In my experience, when an hon. Member makes a short speech, people listen. I hope to follow the hon. Lady's example.
Reference has been made to the Hague preference, which is the reason why the Conservative Benches are so empty. The leader of the Conservative party is holding his pre-nuptial party, which explains why this side of the House is so deserted. Otherwise, it would be crammed with hon. Members wanting to speak about fish. I hope that it explains why I am going to make a very short speech, which is not customary, and why I shall not be here to hear the winding-up speeches. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister understand that.
Brixham is in my constituency, which includes the coastline from Paignton to just outside Thurlestone. About 3,000 to 4,000 of my constituents are employed in the fishing industry. Brixham, which is the principal port, is the second largest fishing port in England and Wales. Fishing is a vocation, rather like being a Member of Parliament but a great deal more dangerous. I pay tribute to the courage of the fishermen. They have a tough way of life, especially in this sort of weather, but they still bring us fresh fish every day.
The United Kingdom fleet lands £637 million worth of fish each year. About £100 million of this is taken up by quota hoppers. We must get the facts straight. About 20 per cent. of the fish landed in Great Britain goes to another nation, or several nations, and is lost to

381
UK fishing communities. About £95 million worth of fish is landed in Devon and Cornwall every year, but a high percentage of that—about 40 per cent.—goes to Spanish or Dutch quota hoppers. The boats are crewed by other Europeans, and the profits go to foreigners.
The real question is whether a country's birthright should be a negotiable asset. Quota hopping breaks our historic and traditional right as a seafaring nation to harvest fish in our own waters. However, it is not only the British fishing industry which is under threat, because the French industry is also being threatened. If the Spanish continue to be allowed to buy the quota of other countries, we will end up with a European fleet made up exclusively of Spanish boats. That strikes me as a major problem. It was not solved by the previous Government, but it provides an opportunity for the Minister to win his spurs if he can deal with it.
The main issue for the Government is how we get back our quota. Can some countries continue to take the quota of other countries? Will a quota be a saleable commodity? I understand that this is not the case with the milk quota and that each country can use only its own quota. Why then can one country buy another country's fish quota?
Mr. Morley: It was a policy supported by the previous Government who were keen on the tradeability of quotas.
Mr. Steen: Well, we have to put it right now. Quotas should not be tradeable; if they are tradeable, the Government should buy ours back. The Government may argue that British fishermen sold their quota in the first place, so why should public money be used to buy it back? The simple answer is because our fish stocks are a vital national asset. In many areas of the country, fishing plays a crucial part in the local economy and provides much local employment. In addition, the quota should be inalienable. When we were in government, we recognised the complexities of the problem. Even if we got it wrong at the outset, we realised in the end that we had to get it right.
The former Prime Minister rightly said that he would not complete the Amsterdam treaty without solving the quota hopping mess, but the new Government seem to have been hoodwinked into thinking that they have solved the problem. They have not. In fact, the Europeans—I use a mixed metaphor—have sold us a pup. The deal negotiated at Amsterdam brings with it no material benefit to the UK fishing industry. Even if it did, President Santer says that it is not enforceable.
As I understand it, the Government have negotiated a deal whereby vessels must land at least 50 per cent. of their catch in their country of registration, or visit that country at least eight times a year for eight hours. If I am wrong, I should be pleased to be corrected.
Mr. Morley: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The visiting qualifications are the present qualifications for licences. Our proposals cover 50 per cent. of the catch, 50 per cent. of the crew or 50 per cent. of the trips starting from a UK port.
Mr. Steen: That is quite helpful, but let us analyse those three points. The first is that 50 per cent. of fishing trips emanate from British ports. That simply involves a vessel from a Spanish port steaming up the channel,
382
arriving at Brixham, and starting its log from there. It then leaves Brixham, returns and goes back to Spain. That may not be practical, but it is possible.
The next option relates to 50 per cent. of the catch being landed at a UK port. This is the option that concerns the fishermen of Brixham. If 50 per cent. of the catch has to be landed at Brixham, the fish will be loaded onto a 44-tonne refrigerated lorry on the docks without even reaching the local auction house. The lorry will then head for Spain, and the catch will in no way have benefited the people of Devon. Only the oil companies will gain. Shell and BP shareholders might be fortunate and benefit from those lorries being filled with fuel, but the public will not benefit. There will also be problems with the ozone layer because of the wretched lorries pouring out diesel fumes on their way to Spain. In other words, no one in the UK port will benefit. There will be more bureaucracy but no extra fish.
Although I want to keep my remarks short, I should like to explore one other issue: flags of convenience that are owned by the Spanish. Does the Minister thinks that the 50 per cent. rule will bring any benefit to people in British ports? I cannot understand how it will create any extra employment. There will not be any extra money. All that will happen is that the fish will not swim, but will be driven, to Spain. I cannot readily understand how our fishermen will benefit from that. Ministers talk about energy conservation, yet they sign up to an agreement that will increase the number of diesel-guzzling lorries loaded with fish—pounding through the English countryside, over the channel and down to Spain.
Fishermen also feel let down about decommissioning. I gather that the Government allocated £53 million, over five years, to ease the problems of fleet reduction. Of that, £36.4 million has been spent and a further £14.3 million has been allocated—leaving a £2.3 million shortfall. Has that money gone to Guernsey or been lost somewhere? Perhaps the Minister can explain what has happened to it.
The Minister will have to spell out—I know that he has to do an awful lot of spelling out in his reply, because every hon. Member has asked him to say something—the benefits of his negotiations at Amsterdam to the ports and people of the south-west. I am not being difficult with him or making a political point, but I cannot discern a benefit.
Perhaps there has been a secret negotiation in which the Minister has done a deal with the other European countries. We do not know about the deal, which is why we are puzzled about it and why the benefit to fishermen and to our ports is not readily seen. Perhaps that is also why there have been so many speeches in the debate about quota hopping. Given his interest in the subject, perhaps he will explain the situation to the House. I will read his explanation in tomorrow's Hansard, because he will excuse me if I go off to the prenuptials. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to hear the explanation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. will soon have to call for the Front-Bench replies to the debate, and can therefore call only four more Back Benchers to speak. I can do that only if hon. Members take no more than eight minutes apiece to speak. I cannot rule on the matter and am in the hands of the House, but I give that advice.
7.1 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I will try to stick to your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Since May, I have noticed that one of the features of debates in the House is how often it has become absolutely clear that the new Government have received a terrible inheritance from the previous Government. There are few worse examples of that inheritance than the common fisheries policy, which was established many years ago with the aim of conserving fishing. This debate and debates on the policy in previous years have shown that that principal aim has not been achieved. Moreover, not only fishermen but the public feel that there is something wrong with a policy that requires dead fish to be thrown back into the sea.
The Conservative Government signed up to the common fisheries policy, and they were in power during its 10-year review. They also held the European Union presidency at the end of 1992, and failed to address the quota-hopping issue, although everyone had known since 1991 that it was a problem.
The Government have also inherited the legacy of the huge and unrealistic expectations raised among fishermen because of the anti-European froth spouted by the Conservatives in the months leading up to the general election. I believe that fishermen were used and exploited by the anti-European brigade—especially by the Maastricht rebels—for their own ends. The people of Lowestoft will remember the sight of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) clambering over trawlers in the port. They had not previously realised that she had such an interest in fishing—although I noticed that she sat through part of today's debate.
Everyone is now clear that those expectations would always be impossible to fulfil, unless we withdrew completely from the European Union. Even in this debate, however, I have heard hon. Members talking about "going to the line" and "pushing it to the limit". We saw what happened on beef. A policy of non-co-operation in Europe achieved only the creation of the acronym PONCE—which is also what the Europeans called Ministers who went to Europe on behalf of the previous Government, espousing their policy.
This Government have achieved more in a few months than the Tories achieved in years. The economic link established by the Government to deal with quota hopping is beginning to work. I mentioned earlier that there has already been an instance in Lowestoft in which a quota hopper has had to take on two British fishermen to fulfil requirements. It is true that those fishermen were recruited from a Lowestoft trawler company, but there are plenty of unemployed fishermen in Lowestoft to take their place. Surely that is the point of the economic link—to create jobs, livelihoods and prosperity for British fishermen.
Happily, since those PONCE days, things are settling down, and sensible discussions and meetings are taking place. In July, I attended a meeting in Lowestoft between East Anglian fishermen and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. Fishermen said that they were impressed by him, because he was willing to listen and he showed commitment and understanding and had great knowledge of and expertise in the fishing industry. Their conclusion—which was published in the press—was that he was a man they could do business with.
384
Since the general election, the story for fishing in Lowestoft has been quite a good one, in relative terms. The fishermen of Lowestoft felt that there were more plaice out in the North sea than the scientists had calculated. Again in his listening mode, the Minister authorised the scientists to recheck the situation. Consequently, the plaice quota was increased from 80,000 tonnes to 91,000 tonnes. Although that figure has had to be reduced in the recent negotiations, the new plaice quota for next year is 87,000 tonnes, which is still well above the 80,000 figure that the scientists had originally proposed.
The huge variation in scientific observations is creating a problem. It is all very well to say at the beginning of the year that the quota should be set at a certain amount, and then to raise it part of the way through the year, but jobs will have been lost and livelihoods will have been wrecked in the meanwhile. I can therefore understand why fishermen call for greater consistency from scientists, and why they question some of their findings.
One matter on which I agree with the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is that we have to get scientists and fishermen together on agreeing what stocks are out there. An agreement will not be easy, but we will have to make a serious attempt at reaching one. If we do so, politicians will no longer be in the middle. As a local politician, the Minister is in the middle. One hears both from one's scientists and from one's fishermen. One cannot say that either group is not telling the truth, but which group does one believe? It is a very difficult situation.
Lowestoft is concerned primarily with plaice, so the news for next year is good. However, one realises—with today's announcement on MAGP IV—that there are difficult times beyond that. Although our small boat fleet will not be affected under MAGP IV, there will have to be a significant reduction in the beam trawler effort. That reduction, although not the nightmare previously feared, will be very difficult.
There are only 11 beam trawlers left in Lowestoft, and everyone feels that we need those 11 trawlers to sustain the Lowestoft fish market. Without the fish market, we cannot really have a fishing industry in Lowestoft. Pardon the pun, but the guts of the industry are in that market. I therefore request that Lowestoft may have serious talks with the Minister to decide what can be done to ensure that, in implementing MAGP IV, the Lowestoft fish market will be sustained.
We are stuck with MAGP IV, which is a consequence of the common fisheries policy. It behoves us all, however, to look ahead in deciding how we can reform the policy. I support what hon. Members have said this evening about the need for more localised regional management. That must be the way forward. Another way is for the Government to sit down and talk to the industry sensibly, with no froth and fire, and to give fishermen a stake in their industry. We have used the term stakeholding in many other contexts; fishermen have an interest in conservation and it is important to give them that opportunity.
The new Government have begun to establish a better relationship with the fishing industry. It is important that we work together in a responsive and responsible way to tackle the problems that lie ahead if we are radically to reform the common fisheries policy.
7.10 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: In view of the advice that you gave the House a moment or two ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall resist the temptation to argue with the contentious remarks made by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) about my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and, presumably, about myself and my other hon. Friends.
What we achieved by showing a particular interest in the fishing industry was to put that industry firmly on the political agenda where it had not been before. Had the hon. Gentleman been in the House at the beginning of the previous Parliament, he would have seen that there was a relatively low attendance at fishing debates, but, by the end of the Parliament, many right hon. and hon. Members showed a tremendously increased interest in fishing. It is no exaggeration to say that it was the action of the so-called rebels which put the fishing industry on the political agenda.
I agree with the hon. Member for Waveney about conservation. So much is said to justify the common fisheries policy in terms of what it does to conserve fish stocks, but, as the Minister will know, I have serious concerns about the proposals to reduce the minimum landing size of fish. I know that the fishing industry shares those concerns because fishermen are responsible people who want to look after the long-term interests of their industry. I believe that the British public would share those concerns if those aspects of the common fisheries policy, to which I shall refer in a moment, were more widely known.
It is a complete mystery to me why, when there are so many animal welfare lobbies showing interest in wildlife and animals, no public attention has been drawn to the fact that we are wasting a huge amount of resources by discarding perfectly saleable fish dead into the sea. The proposals that we are considering contain measures to reduce the minimum landing size of fish. That means that, quite legally, fishermen will be catching fish that will not have had an opportunity to breed; that is absolutely appalling.
I know that the Minister is constrained by the fact that we have to get agreement in Europe to any change. The hon. Member for Waveney should recognise that. The Minister talked about clamping down on black fish. That will lead to greater tonnages of discard and will add to the total loss of fish. It seems extraordinary that the fishing industry culls the young stock whereas in the case of animals, stock that have come to their end of their useful life, are old and have lost value are culled.
The Minister will not be surprised when I say that I wish to pursue the arguments raised in the fisheries debates on 9 and 23 July for, as he has conceded, I am nothing if not consistent. He might also recognise another trait—that of persistence. I should like him to know that I intend to persist in my endeavours to establish the truth. Indeed, if successive Ministers had told the truth over the past 25 years, it is questionable whether we would be in our current position.
The reason why the truth about fisheries is a truth that dare not speak its name is that had the British people been told the truth, they would never have voted to remain in the EEC in 1975. Had they been told that, as from 1 January 2003, fishing vessels of all member states of the EU would be able to fish right up to our beaches—or
386
technically speaking, the base line—that there would be no such thing as a British fishing fleet, and that all the fish in the seas around the British Isles would belong to the EU, there would have been uproar.
For 25 years, the House and the people of Britain—not least the fishermen—have been fed a diet of half-truths, deceptions and downright lies. Article 38 of the treaty of Rome spoke only of a common market in agriculture and fisheries products, but, almost by sleight of hand, subsequent treaties have ensured that fisheries are now part of the acquis communautaire.
Which Minister drew the attention of the House to the clause in the Maastricht treaty which joined fisheries to agriculture and which Minister flagged up the inclusion of the EU fisheries permit system in the treaties of accession for Austria, Finland and Sweden? If the basic fisheries regulation continues indefinitely, as Ministers claim, why did they feel it necessary to include a permit system as a treaty obligation, given that article 4—which sets out the permit system—is already part of the basic regulation?
It is now clear that there will be no reform of the CFP. I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) is paying attention. It was confirmed by Mr. John Farnell, director of Directorates-General XIV in his address to the Greenwich Forum on 16 October. In his reply to me in the House on 12 November, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated that the Government now accept that reform is out of the question. All that will happen on that front, as the Minister himself admitted on 23 July, is that
"the Commission has to produce a report by 31 December 2001"—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol.298, c.906.]
It is committed not to a reform, but simply to a report. That is in accordance with article 14.2 of the basic regulation 3760/92/EEC which states:
"the Commission must produce a report on Community fisheries by the end of 2002, dealing in particular with the economic and social situation of coastal regions, the state of the fisheries resources and their expected development, and the implementation of the basic Regulation."
So there we have it—the implementation of the basic regulation.
That is not what the Labour party was saying prior to the general election. Its election manifesto said:
"We will seek a thorough overhaul of the Common Fisheries Policy to conserve our fish stocks in the long-term interests of the UK fishing industry".
Nor is it what Labour MEPs are saying. They have voted by an overwhelming majority to approve the Carmen Fraga Estevez report which states, among other things, that
"the decisions adopted by the Council throughout the 1970s on the creation of a common fisheries policy asserted the principle of freedom of access to Community fishing grounds."
Secondly, it states that
"in the absence of a decision by the Council, the principle of equal access will apply automatically as from 1 January 2003 … if a fresh derogation is considered necessary, it will have to comply with Article 235 of the Treaty which requires unanimity within the Council."
Thirdly, the report states quite correctly that
"exemptions from the general principle will be repealed automatically as from the year 2002, when the current fisheries policy expires unless otherwise decided (in which case unanimity is required within the Council)."

387
For the benefit of the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Waveney, those are the facts, the realities and the constraints within which our Ministers have to operate. More to the point, the Carmen Fraga Estevez reports continues:
"as we have repeatedly stressed throughout this introduction, the current common fisheries policy in fact constitutes a derogation from the principle of freedom of access, and this derogation will expire in 2002."
Will the Minister recognise that what I am saying, what the Commission is saying, what the Carmen Fraga Estevez report is saying, what his own Members of the European Parliament are saying and what Save Britain's Fish has been saying for a long time is the truth? Personally, quite apart from the fact that it seems improbable that all those people have reached the wrong conclusion, I have no argument with what they are saying. However, I take exception to the craven refusal of successive British Governments to tell the truth.
For example, the new Labour Government, although at last conceding that article 6 of regulation 3760/92 is a derogation, apparently refuse to accept that the regulation is itself a derogation. By dint of its being a derogation, it will not continue beyond 2002 without further agreement. Will the Minister tell the House whether he can produce any documentary evidence that regulation 3760/92 will continue beyond 2002? In the absence of such evidence, it is a matter of fact that the regulation, including article 6, will have to be renegotiated. The question then is what the British Government will give in exchange for Spain's acquiesence. I invite the Minister to assure the House that the bargaining counter will not be the rock of Gibraltar.
The Government deny that, post-2002, we shall have, in effect, a single European fishing fleet, catching European fish in European waters. They do not understand that, as a result of the Maastricht treaty and the treaties of accession, the principle of equal access without discrimination is enshrined in Community law. It is not negotiable. Prior to those treaties, one could have argued that the CFP was open to renegotiation because its basis was in regulation. Now that it is firmly established as part of the acquis, that option no longer exists.
Which of the fisheries Front-Bench spokesmen participating in this debate will be the first to look British fishermen in the eye and admit the mistakes of the past? Will it be the fisheries Minister himself or will it be my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)? It may be of some assistance to them in determining their answer to bear in mind the old saying, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time". I accept that politicians do not like admitting mistakes and least of all having to apologise, but I assure the House that, on this issue, where a vital national interest is at stake, they will be hounded until they do.
7.21 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is wonderful to see so many Labour Members representing fishing ports and speaking up eloquently and articulately in defence of their local fishing industries—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler),
388
who made her maiden speech and raised another voice for the fishing industry. It is even more exciting after 18 years to see in this annual December debate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) as the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I congratulate him on having made himself such a master of the industry so quickly and on winning its respect and support in the way he has.
I do not want to say anything about total allowable catches because there is not much time. I want to make only two points. First, the cod quota, especially in the North sea, is up due to huge juvenile stocks. What proposals does the Minister have to conserve and protect those juvenile stocks so that they can grow into marketable fish? Secondly, will the Minister put off setting an allocation for horse mackerel? The record is incomplete and inadequate and it would be premature to do so.
On quotas, I shall make only two points. First, there is a great need to smooth out allocations, because scientific advice tends to work like a switch-back, a roller-coaster, amplifying trends. It is good at describing historical record but bad at predicting and dealing year by year on a single-species basis. We therefore need to smooth out fluctuations. I suggest adjustments of no more than 10 per cent. up or down. The economic viability of the industry and the impact on communities has to be taken into account as well as conservation. We need to take account of and do more to control discards. It is a simple fact of life that when quotas go down, discards go up, especially in mixed fishing, where there is an horrendous problem of discards. There are all sorts of ways of attempting to deal with such problems. The Canadians are making effective use of square-mesh panels, which gives them more selectivity in catching. We must approach the issue through mixed quotas. All such ways need to be considered because discards are becoming quite a serious problem.
Secondly, it is good to know that now that the multi-annual guidance programme IV has been in force for about a year we have some details of what it involves. It is good to know that there will be no reduction in the demersal fleet, although I must warn the Minister that reductions in the pelagic fleet and beam trawlers will be quite substantial and have a serious effect on the industry—too big to be handled on the basis of co-operative concession, particularly since many involved are not quota hoppers and will not give up just because the British Minister pleads with them to do so.
MAPG IV is not simple, clear and transparent. It is opaque because different countries use different methods to reach the target. It will be very difficult to compare and contrast who succeeds in reaching the targets, yet a good deal depends on it—allocations from Europe, for instance.
I thought that it was ominous when the Minister mentioned the strict financial review that is taking place. Decommissioning money will be necessary; there is no doubt about it. If we are to reduce effort, there is no other effective way of doing so. We cannot go back to the days-at-sea approach. Many of us, especially my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, have held too many verbal hostages to fortune over days-at-sea limitations. The only alternative, therefore, is money. That means money to modernise the fleet. Our fleet is very old in comparison with others, which have had European money to

389
modemise. The average age of our fishing vessels is 25 years, in total contrast with fishing industries in other countries.
I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on the need to maintain industry in ports such as theirs and mine at a critical mass which will sustain facilities and prevent the industry imploding. Most of the decommissioning in the previous round—in fact, 80 per cent. of it—was of English vessels. That is reducing our fleet to such a level that there has to be some means of allowing the producer organisation to purchase quota and track record in order to keep the industry local. Highlands and islands finance in Scotland has been a key element in allowing the purchase of quotas, so why cannot the regional development agencies that we are setting up allocate money through the producer organisation to keep the industry viable locally? There must be some financial basis for allocations.
I express only disappointment at the proposals on quota hoppers. While it is important to do something, what is proposed will be an annoyance to sections of the English industry without closing the door, penalising or controlling quota hoppers.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has worked hard to give the industry a stable prospect and a base for expansion and development, and I congratulate him on that. He has taken that purpose very seriously. However, we also committed ourselves in the manifesto to a fundamental review of the common fisheries policy. The presidency offers great opportunities. I hope that my hon. Friend will not merely use it to be an impartial defender of other people's interests or to concentrate on environmental matters, which are so close to his heart. It is right to deal with drift nets, and so on—I am absolutely 100 per cent. with him on that—but to concentrate on environmental matters and ignore the national interest would be dangerous.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) that there can be no prospect of a fishing industry for this country inside the CFP. I want to pull out, but there is an intermediate, transitional stage. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister should work to move the CFP away from equal access to one of a common resource, under greater national control and influence, allowing Europe—perhaps—to set measures of the lowest common denominator but giving coastal states more control over their own catches and waters, with a more focused control rather than the broad, sweeping, simple, lowest common denominator measures that Europe goes in for.
The common fisheries policy is the worst fishing policy in the world because it is not effectively enforced, it pits fishermen against each other in a competition to decimate stocks, and there is no incentive to conserve stocks. Any fisherman who adopts practical conservation measures immediately sees the fish looted and pillaged by fishermen from other countries. Fishermen are also not stakeholders in the policy, which is the only way that we shall see effective conservation in the industry.
It was nice of my hon. Friend the Minister to make jokes about policy no longer being dictated by Euro-sceptic rumps. I did not take it personally, even though I offer more Euro-scepticism and more rump than most of the Tories do. However, the Minister's comment
390
is not an effective debating point. The fishing industry has been weakened because it has been sacrificed so often and for so long to Euro-enthusiasm.
To obtain concessions in other areas, we have made concessions on fishing because it is not a politically important or powerful industry. That must stop. I have every confidence that my hon. Friend will work to stop it, because he takes the interests of the industry seriously. We must assert the national interest because our interest is in conserving our stocks and ensuring that we have a viable industry to hand on to future generations.
7.30 pm
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: My constituency contains the historic ports of Hastings and Rye, where the fishing industry in recent years has experienced, in common with those elsewhere, a decline in its fortunes. Perhaps worse still, it has felt that the Government have not been listening. It is probably true to say that my very presence in the House is connected with the wrath felt by the fishing community towards the previous Government. It may also be connected with the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to my constituency during the election campaign. The leader of the Liberal Democrats also visited, but my hon. Friend must have had more effect.
Because of the limits on time, I shall immediately raise the single issue that most affects my constituents. The resolution refers to
"the need to ensure that the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised."
I wish to relate that point to area VII, which covers my constituency. My constituents fish from vessels under 10 m and are limited to the locality of their port. With those smaller vessels, the quota for the area is allocated to the area and not to the boats. Therefore, the fish that the boats may take is dependent on the total number of similar small craft fishing in the area.
Two issues have arisen in the past few years that have caused my constituents some dismay and concern. First, fishermen from other areas around the United Kingdom are taking advantage of decommissioning grants, destroying their larger boats, purchasing 10 m licences—pocketing the difference on the way—and re-entering the industry, often in area VII, to take a share of that area's limited resources. Secondly, others have sold their licences for larger vessels and physically shortened their boats to less than 10 m. They are also coming to area VII and depleting still further the fish available to my constituents, who have historically fished there. I am told that at least eight boats from those two categories have entered the area in the past few months.
Within the past three years, the number of vessels sharing the spoils in area VII has virtually doubled. I am delighted that the overall quota remains the same for the coming year, but, with double the number of vessels, simple arithmetic shows that the catch for each vessel is effectively halved. In short, we have our own home-grown quota hopping, which is unfair and which, if allowed to go unchallenged, will risk the stability of the industry and communities such as those of the ports of Hastings and Rye.
There is a simple solution to the problem. If craft under 10 m were licensed to a particular area—to area VII in the case of Hastings and Rye fishermen—the number of

391
area licences could be limited to those boats currently fishing in the area. If UK licences were exchanged for area licences, their numbers could be limited.
Historically, small ports such as Hastings and Rye have rationed their catch to ensure their long-term employment. This year, regrettably, the quota was exhausted this week because of the practices that I have mentioned. If yet more vessels move into the area, next year's Christmas break for my constituents will come even earlier and will be a holiday without pay.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done so much in his short time in office to benefit the constituents to whom I have referred, to visit my fishing constituents. They would make him very welcome and thank him for what he has done, but they would also be able to describe their concerns much more graphically.
7.35 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), to the Dispatch Box. I hope that he will not think that I am presumptuous if I say that he is there not before time. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on her maiden speech. I understand that she is a sculptor in her spare time and she used her artistic powers verbally to paint a vivid picture of her constituency. I look forward to further speeches from her.
I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend), for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who showed their usual expertise in this debate. I understand that they have a different Hague preference from some of us in the Chamber tonight and are not able to be present.
The Minister began with the now customary new Labour language about the new era that has been ushered in. He told us that the unrealistic expectations and policies of the Conservatives, designed for the Euro-sceptics, had been replaced by the lush landscape of harmonious relationships with the European Union. I paraphrase, but I wish him well when he goes to the Council because he will learn from experience.
I wish to put the record straight on what the previous Government proposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made it clear that we intended to achieve a resolution to quota hopping or the Amsterdam process would not have been concluded. The Minister may be right to say that we were outnumbered 14 to one and that we might not have made much progress, but we had been in that situation before. We will never now know whether we would have achieved a settlement on that basis, because the present Government bottled out—or adopted different tactics, depending on which side of the Chamber we sit.
Where have we got as a result of the Government's new communautaire approach? The beef ban is still unaltered, because it is simply a protectionist trade measure; the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is outnumbered 14 to one and unable to manoeuvre; and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have had to eat humble pie over Euro X. The Government are learning from bitter experience what most previous Governments have learnt in the various European Council meetings.
392
The Minister gave us one or two answers on money issues, which followed the usual pattern that we have come to expect from Ministers recently. They say that they have a comprehensive spending review in train but that they have to follow the limits set by their predecessors. They say not a word about the £6 billion more in the Government coffers than the Red Book anticipated. The Government have far more manoeuvrability on spending than they tell their Back Benchers. However, the Minister added a few worrying comments. On the comprehensive spending review, he said that he would examine ways in which the industry could help to pay for any future decommissioning. That is worrying. He also mentioned the two-year implementation of the Conservative spending limits, but MAGP IV runs beyond the end of that two years. What are we to expect? Have we been promised anything or have we simply to hope for the best?
We need full industry involvement in the MAGP IV discussions. Sadly, the Scottish fishermen had to wait three months for a meeting to discuss it with a Minister. I agree with them that no conclusive view on the implementation of MAGP IV should be adopted, through any form of effort limitation scheme, unless there is full consultation with the industry.
We welcome the increase in the TAC for cod and haddock to 140,000 tonnes. A banking element is included, and the agreement of the industry is testament to the seriousness of the desire for conservation to succeed. However, the question of linked fishing remains. Notwithstanding the Minister's intervention earlier, I do not believe that there is any logic in increasing the cod TAC but not the haddock TAC. There has been a failure to achieve a TAC in the UK quota that reflects the abundance of fish present in the sea. Scientists have always told us that haddock and cod should be taken in common to protect cod, and I see no justification for breaking that link now. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out—following an intervention of mine—cod is still designated outside the safe biological limits, but haddock is inside. This shows a lack of concern in negotiations for a particular Scottish interest.
There seems to be a lack of will in making decisions, and I wish to refer in this regard to scientific advice. Ministers must decide and not just react. Scientists are advisers, not gods. They are not infallible. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointed out, it would make a great deal of sense—as the hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) agreed—to set up a joint council of fishermen and scientists; a standing committee to give information on fish stocks. There is a need to come to common agreement with common information, as this would help the Government and the industry. I hope that the Government will take the suggestion seriously, in the constructive spirit in which it is meant.
At present, we are dealing with MAGP IV and the figures suggest that there will be massive reductions, when we are told that the opposite is taking place. We must work on better scientific information than we have at present, and there is room for consensus on this.
I wish to refer briefly to whiting. I am pleased that the Government will discuss the industrial by-catch figure, hopefully for whiting and haddock. The 20 per cent. cut in the TAC for whiting is confusing, as whiting is also

393
inside the safe biological limits. Why is that reduction being made? The UK has an entitlement, under the Hague preference agreement, to 29,000 tonnes of North sea whiting. This must be negotiated in the Council. It is what we are due; it is not charity. The court will shortly make it clear that it is legal and proper. We know that, the industry knows that and our European partners and competitors know that. The Government have a duty to fight for what is due to the United Kingdom. That is particularly important in the west of Scotland.
There are concerns about the scientific advice, and the 40 per cent. reduction in the TAC for whiting cannot be absorbed in one go. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. He must know that the TAC for next year will be 11 tonnes over the previous calculation, and this must be the Government's minimum objective. I expect an explicit commitment from the Minister who replies to the debate. Moreover, the current UK quota is exclusive of the Hague preference, and this again must be negotiated in at the Council. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde mentioned saithe in the west of Scotland. Some 1,500 tonnes have been guaranteed for the UK by the Hague preference in 1997. This also must be retained. I am pleased—along with the industry and other hon. Members—in terms of pelagic fisheries, the stock recovery and the increased TAC. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why Norway has achieved a permanent share of 29 per cent., when those in the know in the industry expected and suggested a lower Norwegian share. There is also a special concern that the TAC on horse mackerel should be allocated among member states in 1998. As the Minister well knows—he is familiar with the issue—the concern centres on the doubts about correct species identification.
One of the other issues raised in the debate was the working time directive, from which sea fishing is exempt. However, this is a clear case of creeping competence by the EU. The fact that it was brought in, disgracefully, under health and safety—which we opposed—as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) said, does not reduce the validity of the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. The social chapter will simply be more of the same, but in other areas.
Share fishermen are regarded in the United Kingdom as self employed. The Government must protect them from the directive. We cannot have continuing interference from Europe in areas in which it has no business. During previous negotiations, we believed, in good faith, that these fishermen would remain exempt. It is no use these measures being introduced by the back door.
I turn now to quota hopping. The Minister referred to continuing discussions, which confused one or two of us who thought that we had a deal. The Prime Minister said on 18 June:
"We also made real progress in Amsterdam … We secured an agreement … we are entitled to put into law a clear economic link between boats using our quotas and Britain. Economic benefits from boats flying the British flag should go to British ports, for example through a proviso that 50 per cent. of a boat's catch should be landed locally. We will, with all possible speed, introduce new licence conditions to reflect that … those agreements will mean a major disincentive to quota hoppers, present and future. Commission agreement to the new measures means that their vulnerability to legal challenge—a perennial problem hitherto—should be greatly reduced."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 315.]
The deal is no more than an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and Jacques Santer. It says that 50 per cent. of fish caught in the United Kingdom quota will
394
have to be landed at British ports, and that fishermen landing their catch abroad will not be able to escape the controls that British fishermen are subject to. It is barely more than a clarification of the current procedure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said in the same debate that
"the Spanish have already poured scorn on his claims to have solved quota hopping."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 318.]
The truth, as the Government know, is that if they try to restrict the movements of existing quota hoppers, they will easily be defeated in the European Court. Therefore, Labour's deal, whereby quota hoppers will be made to land part of their catch in the United Kingdom, may be successfully challenged by the Spanish or Dutch fishermen currently fishing the UK quota. In any event, it does nothing to prevent the future purchase of British quota by overseas fishermen. It does not remove quota hoppers from the UK register; nor will it do anything to change the situation whereby part of the British quota is being caught by, and for the benefit of, overseas fishermen.
Finally, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about the Government's plans to be published tomorrow—but leaked yesterday—for devolution. At the moment, Scottish Office Ministers can lead for the United Kingdom at the Council. The former hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, Raymond Robertson, did so during the general election campaign. I understand that the Bill will say nothing about that, because it will not be acceptable to many Government Back Benchers—as it will not be acceptable to the Opposition—to have a Minister leading for the United Kingdom who is not answerable to the House of Commons. As a result of the proposals, an industry that is vital to Scotland will lose a powerful voice, and tomorrow we will ask the pertinent questions.
We wait with bated breath—if I may use that pun—for the three priorities of the presidency and the place that fishing will have among them. Government is not about mood music, it is about results. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are learning that charm is a limited currency in Europe. We do not blame them for trying to be charming—others have tried—but they must fight their corner.
The simple truth is that we in the House of Commons can huff and puff, consider and debate and make party points all we like, but control over fishing no longer rests here. The meaningful debate must begin from this point. The Government claimed that they wanted a full-scale overhaul of the common fisheries policy. Well, we are waiting.
7.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): It is a pleasure for me to wind up the debate, which has ranged widely and—for the most part—constructively across many aspects of fisheries policy. This is my first opportunity as a Scottish Office Minister to speak on this subject—or, indeed, any other—and I am grateful for the kind words of welcome from various hon. Members.
Mine is not the only maiden. We had the pleasure of an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler), who painted a lovely and enticing picture of her constituency and expressed

395
particular support for a greater regional approach to fisheries policy. This point was made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), and the Government agree strongly—as is expressed in the motion tonight.
Like others, I acknowledge the special nature of the industry, which I know well from my constituency. Fishing is a harsh and dangerous occupation, and fishermen have regrettably paid the price for reaping the harvest of the sea. Our thoughts go to those who have lost relatives and loved ones in the fishing industry. The sinking of the Sapphire has been referred to, and I pay a personal tribute to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for his campaign and, more especially, to the Sapphire families for the dignified way in which they have conducted their campaign.
The question of safety naturally came up in the debate. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) spoke about the five-year strategy for coastguard stations that was announced on 17 November. The aim is to enhance search and rescue around the United Kingdom and to improve the safety of seafarers, and a multi-million pound investment is being made in digital technology.
Staff, trade unions and others are being consulted on the proposed closures. A paper explaining the strategy and its detailed implications will be made available and comments invited, especially from fishermen's organisations. The Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), will publish that document, and she has been with us for this debate.
As hon. Members can see from the pile of papers in front of me, many issues have been raised in the debate. I shall try to get through as many as I can. If I fail to deal with some I shall write to those hon. Members who made them with specific answers. The first point came from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is no longer here. He queried the delay in the publication of the various figures and statistics lying behind tonight's debate. We now understand that the European Commission is to publish the full figures for the multi-annual guidance programme IV decisions today. I shall ensure that they are brought to the attention of the House as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned the working time directive. As the former said, fishing is excluded from its terms; but the European Commission is considering the extension to fishermen of the directive's provisions for four weeks' paid annual leave; for health assessments for night workers; and for a guarantee of adequate rest and a maximum number of hours to be worked annually. We are aware of the industry's strong opposition to the application to sea fishing of working time requirements, and we shall seek to ensure that any arrangements introduced take full account of the realities of commercial fishing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) raised a couple of points, one of which concerned the Russian imports coming in through Aberdeen and the various hygiene requirements, which are causing difficulties. The Government are well aware
396
of those concerns, and Ministers have met representatives of the processing industry to try to find a satisfactory solution. The Scottish Fish Merchants Federation has also made its concerns on the urban waste water directive clear to my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but we are unfortunately unable to offer any prospect of relief from the costs.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) raised a matter that I remember from a Committee on which we both served not so long ago: the problem of an oil spill that affected the fishing interests in her constituency. She said that it did not appear to be from the source from which it was originally believed to have come. She made a serious point, and I shall make inquiries on the matter. Trying to ensure that the polluter pays is a United Kingdom problem, not just a Scottish problem.
On total allowable catches and quotas, several hon. Members have spoken of the need to secure increases in this or that TAC. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will have listened to those points and they will be taken into account in the forthcoming discussions. The hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned the inshore sector, and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made a similar plea. We are very mindful indeed of the regional differences in the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made an excellent speech defending the interests of her port, and the Government are very conscious of the problem to which she drew our attention. Our proposals on designated ports will be made with her concerns very much in mind.
The right hon. Member for Fylde mentioned the allocation of Atlanto-Scandian herring TAC, and described it as a very poor deal. I fully agree: it happens to be a deal which the previous Government negotiated, and unfortunately it is difficult to secure change to that allocation, but if we see an opportunity to do so we will take it.
Several hon. Members spoke about the allocation of new TACs, and horse mackerel was mentioned a few times. We acknowledge that there are problems with the definition of species and we want to ensure that if any proposals are made on allocations they are fair and take account of UK interests.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, along with the right hon. Member for Fylde and others, asked about the Hague preference, and the hon. Member for South Down made the point that its invocation in the Irish sea by the Republic works to the detriment of fishermen in Northern Ireland, whereas its invocation in the west of Scotland and the North sea can bring considerable benefits to the UK when TACs are restricted.
We will invoke the Hague preference whenever it is in our interest to do so. We recognise that fishermen from Northern Ireland often lose out because of the Irish invocation, and the Government will seek to minimise the losses by counter-invoking and by swapping in additional quotas from other member states. The hon. Member for South Down also referred to bilateral communication and discussions between the UK Government and Ireland; those are happening at a senior level through the Northern Ireland Office.

397
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) expressed concern about the impact of effort control on the beam trawl segment, and other hon. Members made the same point about the pelagic segment. I want to make the point as strongly as I can that we are talking about effort control, not about cutting capacity permanently. We want to sit down with the industry and try to work out a system of effort control. We hope that those in the industry will work with us and with each other to avoid a compulsory approach and develop one that is co-operative and has the flexibility that many hon. Members said that they wanted.
On ring-fencing the pelagic segment, it is important to make the point that the changes to the licensing system will be quite complex, and that some aspects will take effect from today, to prevent action by vessel owners who might try to undermine the effect of the ring fence. We will not allow that.
Opposition Members spoke about decommissioning and expressed surprised that we were not making commitments beyond a comprehensive spending review. None of them mentioned the fact that we have managed to provide an additional £2.6 million for decommissioning since May. That money has gone a long way towards achieving our targets under MAGP III. The scale of financing any future decommissioning, and the ways in which it will be funded, will be decided following the outcome of the comprehensive spending review on fisheries that is currently under way.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), mentioned discards. At the October Fisheries Council, we were able to secure a new regulation that will both change the rules on fishing gear construction and give fishermen greater flexibility in meeting catch composition rules. That will come fully into force in two years' time. We are pressing the question of square mesh panels, which my hon. Friend raised, as part of the conservation measures that we are pursuing.
I shall respond by letter to some of the other points that have been raised. In conclusion, we are taking serious steps to tackle the fundamental problems that beset the fishing industry. These steps have been set out by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 378.

Division No. 121]

[7.59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Amess, David

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Burns, Simon

Arbuthnot, James

Butterfill, John

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Cash, William

Baldry, Tony

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Beggs, Roy

(Chipping Barnet)

Bercow, John

Chope, Christopher

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clappison, James

Blunt, Crispin

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Body, Sir Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Boswell, Tim

(Rushcliffe)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Brazier, Julian

Collins, Tim

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Colvin, Michael

398

Cormack, Sir Patrick

McLoughlin, Patrick

Cran, James

Madel, Sir David

Curry, Rt Hon David

Malins, Humfrey

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Maples, John

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Mates, Michael

Day, Stephen

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Duncan, Alan

May, Mrs Theresa

Duncan Smith, Iain

Moss, Malcolm

Evans, Nigel

Nicholls, Patrick

Faber, David

Norman, Archie

Fabricant, Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Fallon, Michael

Page, Richard

Flight, Howard

Paice, James

Forsythe, Clifford

Paterson, Owen

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Prior, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Randall, John

Fox, Dr Liam

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fraser, Christopher

Robathan, Andrew

Gale, Roger

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Garnier, Edward

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gibb, Nick

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Gill, Christopher

Ruffley, David

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

St Aubyn, Nick

Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Gray, James

Shepherd, Richard

Green, Damian

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Greenway, John

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Grieve, Dominic

Soames, Nicholas

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hammond, Philip

Spring, Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hayes, John

Steen, Anthony

Heald, Oliver

Streeter, Gary

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Swayne, Desmond

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Syms, Robert

Horam, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hunter, Andrew

Thompson, William

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Townend, John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Tredinnick, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Trend, Michael

Johnson Smith,

Trimble, David

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Tyrie, Andrew

Key, Robert

Viggers, Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Walter, Robert

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Wardle, Charles

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Waterson, Nigel

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Wells, Bowen

Lansley, Andrew

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Leigh, Edward

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Letwin, Oliver

Wilkinson, John

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Willetts, David

Lidington, David

Wilshire, David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Woodward, Shaun

Loughton, Tim

Yeo, Tim

Luff, Peter

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Tellers for the Ayes:

MacKay, Andrew

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. John Whittingdale.

Maclean, Rt Hon David

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ainger, Nick

Ashton, Joe

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Alexander, Douglas

Atkins, Charlotte

Allan, Richard

Austin, John

Allen, Graham

Baker, Norman

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Banks, Tony

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Barnes, Harry

399

Battle, John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Bayley, Hugh

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Beard, Nigel

Davidson, Ian

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Begg, Miss Anne

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Bennett, Andrew F

Dean, Mrs Janet

Benton, Joe

Denham, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Dismore, Andrew

Best, Harold

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Blackman, Liz

Donohoe, Brian H

Blears, Ms Hazel

Doran, Frank

Blizzard, Bob

Dowd, Jim

Boateng, Paul

Drew, David

Borrow, David

Drown, Ms Julia

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bradshaw, Ben

Edwards, Huw

Brand, Dr Peter

Efford, Clive

Breed, Colin

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Ennis, Jeff

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Etherington, Bill

Browne, Desmond

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Fatchett, Derek

Buck, Ms Karen

Fearn, Ronnie

Burgon, Colin

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Burstow, Paul

Fisher, Mark

Butler, Mrs Christine

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Caborn, Richard

Flint, Caroline

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Canavan, Dennis

Foulkes, George

Cann, Jamie

Fyfe, Maria

Caplin, Ivor

Galloway, George

Casale, Roger

Gapes, Mike

Caton, Martin

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Cawsey, Ian

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Gerrard, Neil

Chaytor, David

Gibson, Dr Ian

Chidgey, David

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Chisholm, Malcolm

Godman, Norman A

Clapham, Michael

Goggins, Paul

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clark, Dr Lynda

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Gorrie, Donald

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Grocott, Bruce

Clelland, David

Grogan, John

Clwyd, Ann

Gunnell, John

Coaker, Vernon

Hain, Peter

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cohen, Harry

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Coleman, Iain

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Colman, Tony

Hancock, Mike

Connarty, Michael

Harris, Dr Evan

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Healey, John

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Cooper, Yvette

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Corbett, Robin

Hepburn, Stephen

Corbyn, Jeremy

Heppell, John

Cotter, Brian

Hesford, Stephen

Cousins, Jim

Hill, Keith

Cranston, Ross

Hinchliffe, David

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hoey, Kate

Cummings, John

Home Robertson, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hood, Jimmy

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

Hope, Phil

(Perth)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Dalyell, Tam

Hoyle, Lindsay

400

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Martlew, Eric

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Maxton, John

Humble, Mrs Joan

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hurst, Alan

Meale, Alan

Hutton, John

Merron, Gillian

Iddon, Dr Brian

Michael, Alun

Illsley, Eric

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Milburn, Alan

Jenkins, Brian

Miller, Andrew

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Mitchell, Austin

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Moffatt, Laura

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Moore, Michael

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Jones, Ms Jenny

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Morley, Elliot

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Mountford, Kali

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Mudie, George

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Mullin, Chris

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Norris, Dan

Keetch, Paul

Oaten, Mark

Kelly, Ms Ruth

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Kemp, Fraser

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

O'Hara, Eddie

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Olner, Bill

Khabra, Piara S

O'Neill, Martin

Kidney, David

Öpik, Lembit

Kilfoyle, Peter

Osborne, Ms Sandra

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Kingham, Ms Tess

Pearson, Ian

Kirkwood, Archy

Pendry, Tom

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Perham, Ms Linda

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Pickthall, Colin

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Pike, Peter L

Laxton, Bob

Plaskitt, James

Lepper, David

Pope, Greg

Leslie, Christopher

Pound, Stephen

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Linton, Martin

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Livsey, Richard

Primarolo, Dawn

Llwyd, Elfyn

Prosser, Gwyn

Lock, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Love, Andrew

Quinn, Lawrie

McAllion, John

Radice, Giles

McAvoy, Thomas

Rammell, Bill

McCabe, Steve

Rapson, Syd

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Raynsford, Nick

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Rendel, David

Macdonald, Calum

Robertson, Rt Hon George

McDonnell, John

(Hamilton S)

McFall, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

McGrady, Eddie

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Rooker, Jeff

McIsaac, Shona

Rooney, Terry

Mackinlay, Andrew

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Rowlands, Ted

McNamara, Kevin

Roy, Frank

McNulty, Tony

Ruane, Chris

Mactaggart, Fiona

Ruddock, Ms Joan

McWalter, Tony

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McWilliam, John

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Ryan, Ms Joan

Mallaber, Judy

Salmond, Alex

Mandelson, Peter

Sanders, Adrian

Marek, Dr John

Savidge, Malcolm

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Sawford, Phil

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Sedgemore, Brian

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Shaw, Jonathan

401

Sheerman, Barry

Tipping, Paddy

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Todd, Mark

Shipley, Ms Debra

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Touhig, Don

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Trickett, Jon

Skinner, Dennis

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Tyler, Paul

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Vaz, Keith

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

Vis, Dr Rudi

Snape, Peter

Walley, Ms Joan

Soley, Clive

Wareing, Robert N

Spellar, John

Watts, David

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Webb, Steve

Steinberg, Gerry

Welsh, Andrew

Stevenson, George

White, Brian

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Wicks, Malcolm

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Stoate, Dr Howard

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

(Swansea W)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Stringer, Graham

Winnick, David

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wise, Audrey

Swinney, John

Wood, Mike

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Wray, James

(Dewsbury)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Tellers for the Noes:

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 360, Noes 150.

Division No. 122]

[8.14 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ainger, Nick

Bradshaw, Ben

Alexander, Douglas

Brand, Dr Peter

Allan, Richard

Breed, Colin

Allen, Graham

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Browne, Desmond

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Buck, Ms Karen

Ashton, Joe

Burgon, Colin

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burstow, Paul

Atkins, Charlotte

Butler, Mrs Christine

Austin, John

Caborn, Richard

Baker, Norman

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Banks, Tony

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Barnes, Harry

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Battle, John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Bayley, Hugh

Canavan, Dennis

Beard, Nigel

Cann, Jamie

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Caplin, Ivor

Begg, Miss Anne

Casale, Roger

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Caton, Martin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cawsey, Ian

Bennett, Andrew F

Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

Benton, Joe

Chaytor, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Chidgey, David

Best, Harold

Chisholm, Malcolm

Blackman, Liz

Clapham, Michael

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Blizzard, Bob

Clark, Dr Lynda

Boateng, Paul

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Borrow, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

402

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clelland, David

Hancock, Mike

Clwyd, Ann

Harris, Dr Evan

Coaker, Vernon

Healey, John

Coleman, Iain

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Colman, Tony

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Connarty, Michael

Hepburn, Stephen

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Heppell, John

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Hesford, Stephen

Cooper, Yvette

Hill, Keith

Corbett, Robin

Hinchliffe, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cotter, Brian

Hoey, Kate

Cousins, Jim

Home Robertson, John

Cranston, Ross

Hood, Jimmy

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hope, Phil

Cummings, John

Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hoyle, Lindsay

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Davidson, Ian

Humble, Mrs Joan

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hurst, Alan

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hutton, John

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Illsley, Eric

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Denham, John

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dismore, Andrew

Jenkins, Brian

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Doran, Frank

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Dowd, Jim

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Drew, David

Jones, Ms Jenny

Drown, Ms Julia

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Edwards, Huw

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Efford, Clive

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Ennis, Jeff

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Etherington, Bill

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Fatchett, Derek

Keetch, Paul

Fearn, Ronnie

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Kemp, Fraser

Fisher, Mark

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Flint, Caroline

Khabra, Piara S

Flynn, Paul

Kidney, David

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Kilfoyle, Peter

Foster, Don (Bath)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Kingham, Ms Tess

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Kirkwood, Archy

Foulkes, George

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Fyfe, Maria

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Galloway, George

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Gapes, Mike

Laxton, Bob

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Lepper, David

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Leslie, Christopher

Gerrard, Neil

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Godman, Norman A

Linton, Martin

Goggins, Paul

Livsey, Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Lock, David

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Love, Andrew

Gorrie, Donald

McAllion, John

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McAvoy, Thomas

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McCabe, Steve

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Grocott, Bruce

McCartney, Ian (MakerHeld)

Grogan, John

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gunnell, John

Macdonald, Calum

Hain, Peter

McDonnell, John

403

McFall, John

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McGrady, Eddie

Rooker, Jeff

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Rooney, Terry

McIsaac, Shona

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Rowlands, Ted

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Roy, Frank

McNamara, Kevin

Ruane, Chris

McNulty, Tony

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McWalter, Tony

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McWilliam, John

Ryan, Ms Joan

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Sanders, Adrian

Mallaber, Judy

Savidge, Malcolm

Mandelson, Peter

Sawford, Phil

Marek, Dr John

Sedgemore, Brian

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Shaw, Jonathan

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Sheerman, Barry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Shipley, Ms Debra

Martlew, Eric

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Maxton, John

Skinner, Dennis

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Meale, Alan

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Merron, Gillian

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Milbum, Alan

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

Miller, Andrew

Snape, Peter

Mitchell, Austin

Soley, Clive

Moffatt, Laura

Spellar, John

Moore, Michael

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Moran, Ms Margaret

Steinberg, Gerry

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Stevenson, George

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Morley, Elliot

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mountford, Kali

Stoate, Dr Howard

Mudie, George

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mullin, Chris

Stringer, Graham

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Norris, Dan

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Oaten, Mark

(Dewsbury)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

O'Hara, Eddie

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Olner, Bill

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

O'Neill, Martin

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Öpik, Lembit

Tipping, Paddy

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Todd, Mark

Palmer, Dr Nick

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Pearson, Ian

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pendry, Tom

Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

Perham, Ms Linda

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Pickthall, Colin

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pike, Peter L

Tyler, Paul

Plaskitt, James

Vaz, Keith

Pond, Chris

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pope, Greg

Walley, Ms Joan

Pound, Stephen

Wareing, Robert N

Powell, Sir Raymond

Watts, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Webb, Steve

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

White, Brian

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Primarolo, Dawn

(Swansea W)

Prosser, Gwyn

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Winnick, David

Quinn, Lawrie

Winterton, Ms Rosie (DoncasterC)

Radice, Giles

Wise, Audrey

Rammell, Bill

Wood, Mike

Rapson, Syd

Wray, James

Raynsford, Nick

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Rendel, David

Robertson, Rt Hon George

Tellers for the Ayes:

(Hamilton S)

Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

404

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Johnson Smith,

Amess, David

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Arbuthnot, James

Key, Robert

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Baldry, Tony

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Beggs, Roy

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Bercow, John

Lansley, Andrew

Beresford, Sir Paul

Leigh, Edward

Blunt, Crispin

Letwin, Oliver

Body, Sir Richard

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Boswell, Tim

Lidington, David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Brady, Graham

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Brazier, Julian

Loughton, Tim

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Luff, Peter

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Burns, Simon

MacKay, Andrew

Butterfill, John

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Cash, William

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Madel, Sir David

(Chipping Barnet)

Malins, Humfrey

Chope, Christopher

Maples, John

Clappison, James

Mates, Michael

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

(Rushcliffe)

May, Mrs Theresa

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Moss, Malcolm

Collins, Tim

Nicholls, Patrick

Colvin, Michael

Norman, Archie

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Ottaway, Richard

Cran, James

Page, Richard

Curry, Rt Hon David

Paice, James

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Paterson, Owen

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Prior, David

Day, Stephen

Randall, John

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Duncan, Alan

Robathan, Andrew

Duncan Smith, Iain

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Evans, Nigel

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Faber, David

Ruffley, David

Fabricant, Michael

St Aubyn, Nick

Fallon, Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Flight, Howard

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Forsythe, Clifford

Shepherd, Richard

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Fox, Dr Liam

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Fraser, Christopher

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gale, Roger

Spring, Richard

Garnier, Edward

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Gibb, Nick

Steen, Anthony

Gill, Christopher

Streeter, Gary

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Swayne, Desmond

Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

Syms, Robert

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Gray, James

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Green, Damian

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Greenway, John

Thompson, William

Grieve, Dominic

Townend, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Tredinnick, David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Trend, Michael

Hammond, Philip

Trimble, David

Hawkins, Nick

Tyrie, Andrew

Hayes, John

Viggers, Peter

Heald, Oliver

Walter, Robert

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Wardle, Charles

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Waterson, Nigel

Horam, John

Wells, Bowen

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Hunter, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Willetts, David

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Wilshire, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

405

Woodward, Shaun

Tellers for the Noes:

Yeo, Tim

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. John Whittingdale.

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1997 relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1998 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intentions to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen based on sustainable fisheries management, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)
8.26 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—

Committee of the whole House
1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee shall be completed in two allotted days.
(2) At the sitting on the first allotted day, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—
(a) which may be selected and
(b) which would insert after '9' at line 13 of page 1 of the Bill words relating to paragraph 40 of Article 2 of the Treaty,
shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Seven o'clock.
(3) At the sitting on that day proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—
(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would insert at the end of line 13 of page 1 of the Bill words relating to Article 2(3)(b) of the Treaty,
shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Nine o'clock.
(4) At the sitting on the second allotted day, any remaining proceedings on Clauses 1 and 2 shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Six o'clock.
(5) At that sitting, the remaining proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Eight o'clock.

Proceedings on going into Committee
2. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 66 (Committee of the whole House on bill) shall not apply.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
Report and Third Reading
4. The proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed on the second allotted day and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Conclusion of proceedings
5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraphs 1 or 4, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion before that time; and

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion,

and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Order of proceedings
6. No motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
Dilatory Motions
7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Interruption of business
8. The following business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour—
(a) proceedings under paragraph 5(1);
(b) proceedings to which paragraph 5(2) or (3) applies;
(c) proceedings under paragraph 10(1).

9. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
(2) If at the sitting on an allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to bobrought to a conclusion under paragraphs 1 or 4, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Recommittal
11. No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation
12. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day;
"the Treaty" means the Treaty signed at Amsterdam on 2nd October 1997 amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts.
The Bill that we are debating again tonight passed its Second Reading five weeks ago and on that night it obtained a majority in the House of 230; 50 more than the Government majority.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: So what?
Mr. Cook: That information is relevant precisely because, in the Division, the Bill received cross-party support from four parties represented in the Chamber. It is not simply a partisan measure supported by the Government alone; it represents a widely held view in the House. Among the mainland parties, only the Conservative party voted against it. Even one or two among that party managed to smuggle out messages that they did so half-heartedly.
Since the Second Reading debate, the Bill has received detailed consideration over three days. It has now been debated on the Floor of the House for 20 hours.
Mr. Shepherd: Oh!
Mr. Cook: I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman finds so funny about that idea. I am bound to say that if he had sat through all of those 20 hours he would not have found them quite so funny.
Mr. Shepherd rose—
Mr. Cook: I shall proceed. The hon. Gentleman can intervene later.
That consideration is on top of the evidence on the Bill that I gave to the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), gave to the Scrutiny Committee. No fair-minded person can complain that Parliament has not had an adequate opportunity to scrutinise the Bill.
Mr. Christopher Gill rose—
Mr. Shepherd rose—
Mr. Cook: I did say fair minded. I owe it to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) to give way.
Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman is making out a case out about the details of the Bill and he is about to argue that it requires a guillotine. He will remember that the instance cited by the Leader of the House about the Single European Act was one which the right hon. Gentleman thought outrageous at the time, as did the right hon. Lady. They both voted against it. This is a constitutional Bill of

409
the first importance. The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that, yet he is so casual about imposing a guillotine of this nature on such an important Bill.
Mr. Cook rose—
Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is in order for the Leader of the House, who represents the entire House, to provide a cue for the Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Such things are not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that if I ever require a prompt I shall be delighted to take it from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I have quite a lot of material here that I wish to share with the House.
May I say briefly to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that I do at least salute the fact that he objected last Thursday when the Bill was proposed. He was the only Opposition Member who complained and I have to report to the House that, since the announcement last Thursday, we have not had one representation from the official Opposition.
Mr. Shepherd: That is not surprising.
Mr. Cook: I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman means.
The motion is before the House because the House in Committee has dealt with only one third of the selected groups of amendments and is currently stuck on the fourth set of amendments. During our proceedings, hours of debate have been spent on monetary union, although the treaty of Amsterdam does not contain one new provision on monetary union.
I will not deny that some of those debates make entertaining reading, as much of the time has been taken up by one faction of the Conservative party arguing with another.
Mr. Michael Howard: Nonsense.
Mr. Cook: I have it all here. There were times when Tory Members appeared more enthusiastic about scrutinising each other' s views than about scrutinising the legislation before the House. [Interruption.] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees, let me remind him that on the second day in Committee the former Chancellor disagreed with the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) disagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) disagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) disagreed with his hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Wycombe.
In fairness, I recognise that the shadow Foreign Secretary has done his bit to shorten our proceedings by preventing votes that would have revealed the divisions on his Back Benches. On Second Reading and in Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman
410
rehearsed his fantasy fears that all 14 other member states would enter into a conspiracy to use the new article on fundamental human rights as a pretext to rob Britain of its voting powers. Despite hours of debate in Committee, the amendment tabled by him on that point was not pressed to a Division. I read in The Daily Telegraph that the amendment was not voted upon because the hon. Member for Wycombe visited the shadow Chief Whip and told him that many Tory Members could not vote for it.
It is, I admit it to my hon. Friends, tempting to allow the proceedings on the Bill to continue to run, so that we can continue to savour the spectacle of an Opposition whose members cannot abide each other's views on Europe, but we have a higher duty—to protect the legislative programme that fulfils the mandate on which the Government were overwhelmingly elected and to ensure that the business of the House proceeds in an orderly fashion.
We therefore present to the House a timetable motion that provides for an orderly and reasonable completion of the proceedings on the Bill with a further full two days of debate. In total, that will mean that the Bill will have been examined on the Floor of the House over six days of debate, which, by any fair test, is a reasonable opportunity for the House to scrutinise it fully.
Mr. Swayne: The Bill may have been examined over six days, but for how much time in any day was it scrutinised? On the days when we have examined it so far, there just happen to have been all sorts of Government statements, which has meant that we have not begun consideration of the Bill until later—not until 6 pm on one occasion.
Mr. Cook: I concede that we are a Government who are active and have a lot of business to announce to the House. Indeed, we are frequently twigged by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench on the ground that we do not announce enough to the House. If it would assist the hon. Gentleman, I could tell him that in future we will try to ensure that such announcements fall on an Opposition day rather than on one of the Government's legislation days.
I do not expect any display of gratitude from the shadow Foreign Secretary for curtailing the opportunity for the Conservatives to air their divisions. On the contrary, I look forward with keen anticipation to a display of virtuous indignation on behalf of the rights of Members of Parliament.
There are a couple of reasons why such a display of mock indignation will be especially misplaced in the context of the Bill. The first is that most of the policies in the Bill are policies that even Conservative Members support, notably the legal basis for Britain's external border controls. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary keeps telling us that that is a provision that he himself negotiated. I am bound to say that no such provision was in any text of the draft treaty when we took over, but as he persists in believing his own rhetoric it is all the more odd that he should wish to talk out a provision for which at the same time he claims the credit.
Conversely, the one thing that most Conservatives can agree to oppose in the Bill is that it gives effect to Labour's commitment to take Britain into the social

411
chapter. It would be hard, even for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to argue that that is a policy which we tried to keep hidden. On the contrary, we have campaigned vigorously for that objective since the Conservatives first invented the opt-out six years ago.
There cannot have been an elector who voted Labour in May who was unaware that the consequence of his or her vote would be to extend the benefits of the social chapter to Britain, and in that full knowledge the nation voted in gratifyingly large numbers for a Government to carry out the policy. It is a perverse distortion of reality to claim that a timetable motion to protect our commitment to the people is an affront to democracy. On the contrary, it is Opposition Members who have sought to frustrate the democratic vote of the nation by delaying the Committee proceedings.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Foreign Secretary must know that he went to the country wanting to extend qualified majority voting in four particular areas of policy, but succeeded in delivering only one of them. Never mind that he succeeded in conceding qualified majority voting in 13 other areas, of which the electorate were totally unaware. We are debating precisely that fact in Committee as the right hon. Gentleman introduces the timetable motion.
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on complaining that I failed in my objective of extending qualified majority voting. That is a new line of attack for the Conservative Opposition. I must point out to him that the extension of qualified majority voting at Amsterdam was half the extension brought about by the Maastricht treaty, and was almost infinitesimal compared with the major extension that took place when the Conservatives entered the single market in 1986. In the light of that record, we shall take no lectures from Conservative Members about protecting the British veto.
Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make some progress. I shall give way to him later.
I also remind the House that during the Conservative years they presented guillotine motions to the House 82 times—one for every two Tory Members who survived the deluge of the last election. In a previous debate, the shadow Foreign Secretary described Robespierre as a great reforming socialist. I am not sure whether I would go all the way with that characterisation, but I would certainly agree that Robespierre's affection for the guillotine was entirely shared by the Conservatives while they were in government.
Only last year, the present shadow Foreign Secretary presented to the House a guillotine motion that provided not for two days in Committee but for two hours in Committee. At least three times in the previous Parliament, the Conservative Government presented a guillotine motion not after three days in Committee but before the Second Reading had even begun.
I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he himself voted for the guillotine motion on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in 1986. The
412
guillotine motion that he voted for on that occasion was less generous than the one that he will vote against tonight. It, too, followed three days of proceedings in Committee, but it provided for only a further five hours of debate. That Bill set up the single market and made far more sweeping changes to our relations with Europe than anything in the Amsterdam treaty.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)? Why does the Foreign Secretary wax so eloquent on the subject of the single market when he was against the guillotine motion on that Bill?
Mr. Shepherd: So was the Prime Minister.
Mr. Cash: So was the Prime Minister—and the Leader of the House. How can the Foreign Secretary get away with such hypocrisy, given that he thinks it is wrong for us to continue the debate and is imposing a guillotine on this Bill?
Mr. Cook: I can explain that with the greatest of pleasure. First, this is a much more generous timetable motion than the motion we were offered then. Secondly, that Bill was of greater constitutional magnitude because it provided for the most significant extension of qualified majority voting in the history of the European Union.
Mr. Cash: Absolute rubbish.
Mr. Cook: What I said is true. That Bill provided for a wide extension of Community competence through 11 new titles for Community action, which is far more than the Amsterdam treaty provides. It paved the way for most of the European Union regulations that Conservative Members now complain about most loudly.
Mr. Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No, I shall not give way again.
Let us have no humbug about constitutional outrages from the very people who guillotined the earlier Bill. This Bill contains no similar measure of fundamental constitutional change. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described it in Committee as "a mouse", although no doubt that will not prevent him from puffing in mock indignation as he marches through the Division Lobby to oppose his mouse being guillotined.
I do not deny that the Bill is important. It is important because of the real benefits for the people of Britain that the Amsterdam treaty provides. The treaty gives, for the first time, explicit legal authority for Britain to retain its border controls; it confirms NATO as the cornerstone of our defence; it provides a fuller, legally binding basis for the principle of subsidiarity; it provides for tougher action on fraud against the Community budget; it obliges the European Union to give greater priority to protecting the environment, promoting openness in its proceedings and to tackling unemployment; and it extends to the working people in Britain the same rights under the social chapter as are enjoyed throughout the continent, but which were denied to them by the Conservatives.

413
The Bill fulfils the manifesto commitments on which we were elected by the British people. I commend the timetable motion to the House, so that the Government are not frustrated in their duty to carry out that electoral commitment. A vote for the motion will enable us to give effect to the clearly expressed wishes of the majority of Members of Parliament at Second Reading and to the even clearer choice of the people of Britain at the general election.
8.41 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: The Foreign Secretary's performance showed the complete contempt in which he and the Government hold the House. He advanced two utterly novel propositions in justification of the guillotine. Their novelty was equal to their absurdity.
The first novel proposition advanced by the Foreign Secretary in support of the guillotine motion was that a large majority for a Bill on Second Reading relieves the House of its duty to scrutinise that legislation. What an extraordinary proposition. The second proposition that he advanced was that unanimity on the Opposition Benches in Committee is required if a guillotine is to be averted. That is another extraordinary proposition, even if one does not take into account the fact that some of the most striking speeches in Committee were made by Labour Back Benchers in complete contradiction to everything that we have heard from the Government.
The Foreign Secretary referred at length to some of the minor differences of emphasis placed on this subject by Conservative Back Benchers in Committee. No one could apply that description to the contributions of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) or the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), whose powerful speeches were different in tone from and completely contradictory to everything we heard from the Government.
One of our first duties as Members of Parliament is to debate legislation. By discharging that duty, we hold Government to account and serve the interests of our constituents. We are not relieved of that duty by the fact that the Bill received a large majority on Second Reading, or that differences of view on the Bill's contents are expressed by hon. Members from both sides of the House.
The Foreign Secretary has moved to guillotine an important constitutional Bill after just 12 hours in Committee. The Bill puts into British law the treaty agreed at Amsterdam. The treaty transfers significant powers from the House and from those whom we are elected to serve, to the European Union.
The Bill is not just another measure relating to domestic affairs, making some adjustment to our domestic arrangements that could easily be put right by another measure in some future Parliament. It is not even a domestic constitutional Bill, such as those for devolution in Scotland and Wales, which could be repealed by future legislation. The Bill enshrines in law a treaty that has been negotiated with our partners in Europe. No future Parliament can undo its provisions unless the Government of the day are prepared to renegotiate the treaty.
What makes the Bill doubly significant is that it reduces the powers of this Parliament. By simultaneously reducing the ability of the member states to veto European legislation and increasing the power of the European
414
Parliament to veto that legislation, it diminishes the powers of the House. That is why the guillotine motion is so obnoxious. It means that these momentous decisions will be taken without full and proper debate.
This is the second time in six months that the Government have stifled debate on a major constitutional issue, and this latest decision is all of a pattern with the contempt that they have shown for Parliament since 1 May. There has been the change without consultation in the format of Prime Minister's questions, a change which I suspect the Prime Minister is already beginning to regret. There is an obsession with making announcements anywhere but in the House, and there has even been the failure of a Minister to turn up to reply to an Adjournment debate. Those are formidable manifestations of the arrogance of the Government's attitude to Parliament.
Of course, the list does not end there. Since taking office, the Government have made plain their intention to whittle away the powers of the House and of those who sent us here, and to transfer them to assemblies elsewhere in Britain, to Europe, to the Bank of England and to an unelected judiciary. When the Government treat the House with contempt, they treat with contempt those who send us here. This motion is just the tip of that iceberg.
The guillotine motion is the most draconian way to silence debate that exists in Parliament. "Erskine May" is clear. Under "Allocation of Time Orders (Guillotines)" it states:
"They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate."
Governments have traditionally sought to guillotine debate only after it has become clear that insufficient progress is being made. "Erskine May" also states:
"An allocation of time order is not usually moved … until the rate of progress in Committee has provided an argument for its necessity."
However, this arrogant and disdainful Government moved to guillotine the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill before it had even reached Committee. On this Bill, if the Government are so concerned about time and progress, why have they not moved a single closure motion? They have not made one complaint about our speed of progress so far. The Government now intend to cram the rest of the Committee debate on the Bill and Report and Third Reading into just two days. How can Ministers credibly argue that the timetable gives the House sufficient time to scrutinise legislation?
Qualified majority voting, the co-decision procedure, institutional change, flexibility, the free movement of people, discrimination, subsidiarity, proportionality and the location of European institutions are all vital issues of constitutional importance, and the Government deem it fit to debate them, if at all, for just a few hours.
"Guillotines can be justified only where an Opposition have filibustered a Bill, where they have refused all reasonable suggestions to agree a timetable, or where there is no possibility of the Government getting their business through at reasonable speed without a guillotine."—[Official Report, 1 February 1988; Vol.126, c.756.]
Those are not my words: they are the words of the present Home Secretary. I challenge the Foreign Secretary to tell the House which, if any, of those conditions have

415
been fulfilled in this case. There has been no question of a filibuster, no suggestion of agreeing a timetable has been put to us, and there is absolutely no reason why the Government should not get their business through at reasonable speed without the guillotine.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks why we have not come and asked the Opposition to agree to a timetable motion and I must answer, although I do not think that it is an answer he will find comfortable. We have not come and asked him to agree to a voluntary timetable motion, because we knew that he could not deliver his own Back Benchers. As he has discovered all these weighty arguments against a guillotine motion, will he now tell the House which of the arguments he advanced inside the Conservative Government when they guillotined the Bill that became the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the poll tax?
Mr. Howard: These arguments were highly relevant to that Bill—the conditions were fulfilled. That is the difference between the two cases.
Let me make the position clear. There are those of my hon. Friends who can argue the case tonight on the basis that no guillotine is justified, but I do not argue the case on that basis. Of course I recognise that guillotines can be justified, but I accept the criteria that I have just put forward. Those criteria, or at least one of them, have to be met if a guillotine is to be justified. All the Foreign Secretary could say in answer to my challenge to identify which of the three criteria was being used to justify this guillotine was not to identify any of them, but to give a reason why the Government had not even approached the Opposition with an offer for an agreed timetable for the rest of the Bill.
Mr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy to me. With 1997 hindsight, can he now say that the guillotining of the poll tax legislation was justified? That Bill imposed the poll tax on Scotland a year ahead of its introduction in England, and was, in my view, the beginning of the end for Scottish Conservative representation in this House.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to his view on the merits of that legislation, but the justification for the guillotine was ample. If he goes back and sees the extent to which these criteria applied to that Bill, he will find his answer.
There are, of course, some who claim that the constitutional issues to which I have referred are not really of any interest to people, and that people are really interested only in the nitty-gritty issues such as jobs; but I do not share that view. I think that the people of this country are keenly interested in their rights and freedoms and the extent to which those will survive; but even on the least abstract test—the extent to which people's jobs and livelihoods will be affected—the Bill is of supreme importance, because it would incorporate the social chapter into our law. It would enable our European partners and our competitors to force us to impose on British business the burdens that are having such a significant impact on their own firms.
416
Jacques Delors said that the social chapter opt-out won by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) would make the United Kingdom
"a paradise for Japanese investment".
He was right. Because we have a flexible labour market, excellent industrial relations and low overheads, Britain's firms have been able to take on and beat the competition. That is why we have created the jobs and why unemployment has come down, but that opt-out will now be ended. There are already proposals on the table to which even the Labour Government are opposed, but which we shall be powerless to prevent as a result of the Bill. What an outrage that such a far-reaching measure should be subjected to the guillotine.
I now turn to the areas of the Bill that have yet to be discussed in Committee—vital areas, about which we will barely have time to say a word or two because of the guillotine.
We are opposed to the extensions of qualified majority voting and the co-decision procedure agreed at Amsterdam, because they would take power from this Parliament and give it to Brussels. On institutional changes, we fail to understand why the Government agreed to more powers for the President of the Commission. Why should he have the power to veto Commissioners recommended by the member states? What was the justification for a change that takes power from democratically elected Governments and gives it to an unelected official?
On the question of free movement of people, we support the British opt-out on frontiers. It was not I who had the privilege of negotiating that opt-out, nor have I ever suggested that it was, but it was a Conservative Foreign Secretary who secured agreement to it. Policy on frontier controls, asylum and immigration should be decided in Britain, not in Brussels.
We must have an opportunity to debate the Government's extraordinary allegations about the behaviour of the Spanish and Dutch Governments at and after the Amsterdam summit. The Government of the United Kingdom are alleging that those governments did a private deal in the margins of the summit, failed to report it to the other members of the Council, and smuggled it into the treaty. In other words, say the Government, they cheated.
That is a truly astonishing allegation. What confidence does it foster in the decision-making process of the European Union? After all, no self-respecting golf club would allow two members of its committee to do a hole-in-the-corner deal, keep it secret from the rest of the committee, and smuggle it through into the minutes of the committee decision.
We are told that the Government made representations to the Dutch presidency, but they clearly did not think it serious enough to raise at the Luxembourg summit. Why on earth not? Why on earth did they not complain at that gathering? We know that the Dutch Government are concerned about the allegations. We know that they wrote to the British Government about them as long ago as 16 July, but the Government refuse to publish that letter.
We are continually being told about the Government's devotion to open government. Indeed, the treaty of Amsterdam introduces a requirement for the European Union to espouse the cause of open government.

417
Why, then, will not the Government publish the letter of 16 July? I hope that the Minister will deal fully with that point when he replies to the debate.
I have not dealt this evening with all the shortcomings of the Amsterdam treaty; it would not have been appropriate to do so, serious and far-reaching though those shortcomings are. The treaty was as bad for what it omitted as for what it included—nothing to stop quota hopping, nothing to reform the European Court of Justice, and nothing to help enlargement. The treaty was a negotiating failure for the Government: bad for Britain and bad for Europe.
We have opposed the Bill in a constructive and measured way. We believe that it is necessary to scrutinise the details; we believe that it is necessary to question Ministers on the effects of the various provisions; we believe that it is necessary to explore the implications of the transfer of powers that the treaty provides. This guillotine will make it impossible for us to discharge those essential constitutional details. It is the action of an arrogant and complacent Government, who have no respect for this House. That is why we shall oppose it in the Lobby tonight.
8.56 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The great Arizona senator, Morris Udall, was once asked why the convention of the Democratic party, of which he was such a distinguished member, lasted for four days. He said, "It is really quite simple. After two days, everything had been said, but not everyone had said it." For those who have had any connection with the Second Reading or Committee stage of the Bill, that judgment applies as equally and acutely as it possibly could. Everything that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, in outraged tones redolent of his previous practice, seemed to me to be things that I had heard before—if not from him, from the phalanx of eager-faced young men recently elected to the House of Commons and anxious to make their mark on the Benches of the Conservative party. Those of us who have sat through—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are your colleagues?"] They have every confidence in me to deal with these matters.
Those of us who had to listen to the Conservative party's participation in the debate felt that there was nothing new to be said.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is about to demonstrate that once again.
Mr. Blunt: The hon. and learned Gentleman's observations would carry more weight if he had been in the House for rather more of the Committee stage.
Mr. Campbell: That is untrue; I have been present for 80 or 90 per cent. of the Committee stage. That compares pretty favourably with other hon. Members. Hansard will show that many of the speeches have been repetitious, rehearsing points that had been made on Second Reading. Indeed, in some cases they were merely a rehearsal of the speeches made on Second Reading.
418
Therefore, when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe presents himself with such enthusiasm and anxiety to protect the interests of his constituents, he would do well to reflect on the fact that virtually everything he said in support of that proposition has been said in the House not once, but many times on and since Second Reading.
It is unacceptable that a Bill of this importance should be allowed to make so little progress. Between Second Reading and the Committee stage, more than 20 hours have been devoted to the Bill in the House. All the issues to which I have referred have been canvassed and we are barely past the second group of amendments.
Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: Not for the moment.
I have noted with interest not only the duration of Conservative Members's speeches, but the number of interventions that they have made and the number of artificial interventions that they have made on each other. That, perhaps more than anything else, gives the lie to the notion that there has been no effort at stringing the Bill out and at filibuster.
It has not only been the length of speeches or the frequency of interventions: some of the quality of argument has shown that there is no serious intent to deal with the issues that the Bill raises.
For example, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe became very exercised about article J16 and the role of the Secretary-General of the Council, high representative for the common foreign and security policy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had the powers of a Metternich or a Kissinger, but when we read the article, we find that the high representative
"shall assist the Council in matters coming within the scope of the common foreign and security policy, in particular through contributing to the formulation, preparation and implementation of policy decisions, and, when appropriate and acting on behalf of the Council at the request of the Presidency, through conducting political dialogue with third parties."
It would be hard to imagine a more lukewarm job specification for someone acting in the common foreign and security policy arena. That sort of argument in the debate was as much of a window on the attitude of the Conservative Opposition as were the duration of their speeches or the frequency of their interventions.
As has been pointed out, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described the treaty, for which the Bill is the enabling instrument, as a mouse of a treaty. Of course, in those days, the official position of Her Majesty's Opposition was that, so important were the issues raised by the Bill—they were so fundamental constitutionally—that there had to be a referendum. The referendum, along with the baseball cap, appears to have disappeared from the political scene, but that does not alter the fact that the Bill does not justify the apocalyptic terms in which it has been described, or the synthetic description of the consequences of the guillotine motion that is to be passed by the House.
I would prefer it if it were not necessary to guillotine legislation at all, but that could be achieved only if we were to adopt what the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has accepted,

419
for the purpose of experiment, as a matter at least of principle: that all Bills should be timetabled from the beginning, so that there would be proper opportunity for scrutiny of all relevant parts of all Bills, and there would not be either the need to impose guillotines or encouragement to create circumstances in which guillotines might be imposed.
As the Bill has gone through the three Committee days on the Floor of the House, it has been obvious that the official Opposition were almost willing the Government to impose a guillotine, so that the official Opposition could reflect the synthetic anger and anxiety of which we have heard so much. It was clearly part of the tactic. Unable to deal the merits of the argument, they think that there may be something a little more substantial to attack in the imposition of a guillotine.
The Bill should be passed as soon as possible. It is in the interests of all our constituents—
Mr. Swayne: Subjects.
Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman thinks of our constituents as subjects, and if that was a common view among Conservative candidates at the general election, it is perhaps not surprising that so few Conservative Members were returned to Parliament. I did not hear my Conservative opponent saying that the electors were all subjects, but perhaps Conservative candidates in other parts of the United Kingdom thought that that was the appropriate way to proceed. If so, it would explain their lack of numbers.
The Bill should be passed as soon as possible. By the time the terms of the guillotine motion have been implemented, the Bill will have been allotted sufficient time. It is in the interests of our constituents that it should be passed, which is why I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
9.5 pm
Sir Michael Spicer: One thing that has to be said about the Committee stage of the Bill that enshrined the Maastricht treaty in law—I had the honour to play a part in it—was that there was no guillotine. My colleagues and I who took part in the Maastricht debate were trying to guess how many times the Government had to bring the Committee stage to a close. We may not be absolutely correct, but we guess that it was about 30 times. If that is the case, I had the honour to vote against the closure 30 times, as did several of my hon. Friends who are here now.
The then Government used the usual procedures of the House in dealing with a highly controversial Bill that they could have guillotined. They had the power to guillotine it and certainly had the votes. The Opposition, who were in collusion with the Government on the matter at that time, would no doubt have abstained or faded into the night, and the Government would have got the guillotine motion. However, the Government chose not to take that route.
It is perfectly legitimate for my hon. Friends, and especially my colleagues on the Front Bench, to argue that it would have been appropriate to use the usual procedures to deal with a highly contentious Bill now. As
420
I understand it, part of the Government's argument is that this is not a very important Bill. They say that we are making too much fuss about it. I have to say—this may surprise my colleagues as much as it surprises the Government—that large parts of the Bill are simply more of what we already have.
We have not yet got to the foreign and security policy aspects of the Bill, but, when we do, we will find that they are simply more of what we have had before. The same is true of qualified majority voting—one can happily argue that, to some extent, the pass was sold on the principles of QMV. It might also be contentious to say from the Opposition Benches that the social chapter provisions were pretty well established through the parts of the treaty dealing with health and safety. I would make the same case for the frontier opt-out which matters enormously to the Danes. However, the opt-out can be circumvented.
I suspect that one would not need to be a very clever lawyer in the European Court to start arguing about the frontier opt-out on the grounds of competition policy, as happened with health and safety on the social chapter. Of course, it is better to have the opt-out than not to have it; nevertheless, one suspects that, in the context of the movement that Europe is making at the moment, it does not amount to a tin of beans.
Among the issues in the legislation that we will not be discussing in the detail that we should is human rights—which, one must accept, is a new matter of principle: the idea that a member state will not be expelled but will be refused its voting rights because it does not comply with the will of the majority. Ministers have asked, "Who would possibly attack or gang up on the United Kingdom on human rights grounds? Only the Greeks will be in the dock on that matter."
One could, however, quite easily conceive—as some have conceived in debates on the Bill—of circumstances in which it might be said that what we were doing in Northern Ireland, for example, was unacceptable to other member states. If they do not like what we are doing on the single currency, for example, perhaps they will gang up on us. They certainly have the power to do so, and that is the important point. The powers now exist, and that is a new step and a new matter of principle. It is an important matter, and we should have further time to debate it. Although it has been wrongly caricatured by Labour Members, the Government have conceded a new principle. Other member states will be able to gang up to remove all voting rights from one of their number. Ministers may shake their heads, but that is the established principle.
The point that really worries me is one that we have not yet debated and one which the Government make a big play of in their favour: subsidiarity. Subsidiarity was presented to those of us who had concerns about the treaty of Maastricht as one of the treaty's fig-leaves. It was always said that, in the treaty of Maastricht, we had at least started to establish some counterpoise to the movement towards a federal, centralised, socialised European state. Time and again, during that Bill's passage, the argument from both Front Benches was that we had firmly established something called subsidiarity. The wording in article 3b was said to be quite clear. It stated:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity".

421
The wording was given as some kind of answer to hon. Members who said that we were moving inexorably towards a federal state of Europe. Some hon. Members asked, "Who will determine which matters fall within the competence of the nation state, and which matters fall within the competence of the federal state?" We never received a proper answer to that question, although it was obvious that federal institutions would ultimately determine which bits they would have the goodness of heart to cast back to national authorities. Those bits were few. I remember having long discussions about planning decisions, many of which were to be reserved or at least held at the discretion of the federal authority.
Ministers have said with great excitement that, in the treaty of Amsterdam, they have now somehow achieved something on subsidiarity, and that they have really—for once, they say—established some firmness of definition and of purpose.
Mr. Swayne: The Foreign Secretary said it himself.
Mr. Robin Cook: I did not say it.
Sir Michael Spicer: If the Foreign Secretary did not say it, it does not really matter, because we need to be concerned only with the wording. Paragraph (2) of the protocol on subsidiarity states:
"The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law".
There we have it. Some of us have always argued—in that sense, we do not get desperately excited about the Bill because it is just more of the same—that we have been moving in a clear and apparently irreversible direction; we have maintained our position on the basis that two forces are moving us towards a federal state. First, there is the apparently inexorable move towards monetary union, with all the effects on monetary policy and the transfer of reserves, and—as we argue strongly—in terms of fiscal policy. We cannot have a single monetary policy without a single fiscal policy, not least because the two have to be run in tandem, but also because a single price system without a single wage system throughout Europe must mean a massive transfer of funds from rich to poor nations. That must be combined with a central taxation feature. Of course, all the institutional arrangements for that are in place.
The process is inexorable. I know that at least one of my right hon. Friends says that there is a distinction between a federal state and a single currency state—or a system in which there is a single currency. However, I cannot understand how that can be true.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman and perhaps other hon. Members that this is not a general debate on Europe. We are talking about the allocation of time.
Sir Michael Spicer: I understand that, and I shall move straight on to my next point.
The section on subsidiarity in the treaty of Amsterdam has to be seen in the context of what is happening in Europe. It relates in particular to the second force that is working inexorably towards a federal state—the European Court of Justice.
422
We should have time to discuss the treaty and the protocol, which are of intense importance because, for the first time, they enshrine into the European Court of Justice and into the concept of the acquis communautaire the concept of subsidiarity. Until now, that has been left vague. Some of us said that it was too vague and that it was being used as an excuse for moving towards a federal state, but now it is enshrined in the treaty. The European Court has derived its powers largely from itself—it has built up its own powers through various court cases with Sabena, giving it priority to set up new law, the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, giving it priority over domestic Parliaments, and acquis communitaire, giving it the powers of occupied territory to move further forward in one direction.
Now, in the treaty of Amsterdam, the Government are blowing their own trumpet and trying to get away with the argument that the enshrinement of subsidiarity somehow provides a balance. In the treaty of Amsterdam, they have enshrined the concept and handed it over to the European Court of Justice.
Mr. Swayne: May I ask my hon. Friend how long he suspects that subsidiarity might survive, given that article B of the treaty says:
"The Union shall set itself the following objectives".
The fourth such objective is
"to maintain in full the acquis communitaire and build on it"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be encouraged to answer that intervention. I have already made the point that we are talking specifically about the allocation of time.
Sir Michael Spicer: Of course I understand. If I may be so bold as to say so, my point fits directly into the question that my hon. Friend has just asked me. We are not being given enough time to discuss paragraph 2 of the protocol on subsidiarity which is a central part of the Amsterdam treaty—it is the part which the Government swank about. As my hon. Friend pointed out, this time the acquis communautaire is being connected to subsidiarity and the whole matter handed over to the European Court to determine what should be subsidiary and what should not.
That is a major new step. The Government should not be allowed to get away with making such assertions about legislation. That is one of the central reasons why we should have more time to discuss the matter. Governments have claimed for some time that they are retracting power from Europe through a piece of European legislation, when, in fact, they are doing precisely the opposite. Only if we have time to explore the issue will we be able to winkle that out of the Government and put them on their back foot. It is terribly important to the public understanding of what is going on through the treaty of Amsterdam that that should be so.
I rest my case, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will perhaps be glad to hear, on a point about ratification of the treaty by national Parliaments. Especially in this country, where we do not have a pattern of holding referendums, we must ensure that Parliament has time to discuss the ratification of treaties. Such treaties fundamentally affect this country's constitution in, as it happens, a progressive way, towards a federal state of Europe.

423
Apart from Portugal, which may have a referendum, Denmark is the only country left with a referendum. As we shall pass the legislation in a matter of hours, this country will certainly not have much more to say about the treaty. The ratification process is becoming a matter of rubber stamping as a result of this motion.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to Denmark. Is not it ominous and significant that, in Denmark, when the Euro-apologists and those who support a federal Europe did not get their way, the rules were changed? We should have more time to discuss what is involved. In Denmark, those who support a federal Europe persuaded others to undertake a second referendum. Are we going to allow a second referendum if, for instance, Denmark—again—or Portugal vote no? Are we again going to breach all the principles and time limits that formed part of the Maastricht debate on the European Community?
My hon. Friend is correct. The legislation will have a fundamental effect on our constitution, and that is why we should have more time to discuss it. We are talking not only about the European Court of Justice but a single currency. If one gives up control of one's currency, one loses control of one's economy; and if one loses control of one's economy, one loses control of one's country. Should this Parliament allow that to happen? I do not believe that it should.
Sir Michael Spicer: That was an excellent speech, and I am very pleased that my hon. Friend was able to make it.
The point that I was making was that if Parliament goes ahead with the process of rubber stamping this legislation, the only country left which will be able to try to stand its ground will be Denmark.
I end on this question: what is this all about? What are we doing? One thing that we are doing is moving towards a federal state of Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned the economic aspect, and I mentioned the legislative aspect. We will not be able to get to grips with the Government's claim that the legislation is some kind of balancing act, and that there is give and take. There is not; the legislation is part of an inexorable process towards a federal state of Europe. No one has shown me why it is to the good of this country to give up our economy and our democracy. What will that be replaced with? It will certainly not be replaced with stronger democratic institutions. No new seasoned economic instrument will safeguard this country.
The treaty is of great importance because it is part of a seemingly seamless process. We should have had time to discuss the phoney element of the Government's claim that the Bill is balanced. We will not have enough time to challenge the argument that the element of subsidiarity in the Bill is a balance against all the federal moves and the changes to qualified majority voting that it contains. It is the opposite, and we should have had time to discuss that.
9.24 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I agree with some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer).
424
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) revealed what the concept of new Liberal, new Democrat means: essentially, it is that what he believes in is right and what others believe in is wrong. He is happy to have a guillotine on that basis.
The Foreign Secretary, whose talents as a forensic cross-examiner in the House have been exhilarating to witness, resorts to Tweedledum—or possibly Tweedledee—politics: the arguments that he advocated yesterday are not the ones that he advocated today. The cynicism associated with that reversal of position undermines the standing of the House, and, if I may be so frank, the standing of the Foreign Secretary himself. We are not sent here only to administer the actions of government, as the Foreign Secretary well knows. In his long 18 years in opposition, he fought many battles, one of which was opposition to the guillotine. In almost all the guillotine votes, I joined him in the Lobby to express the inappropriateness and unreasonableness of curtailing debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made the points that everyone in opposition would make.
I wish to refer closely to a note of a previous speech:
"the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is not just another Bill relating to our domestic affairs. It is not a Bill which, however objectionable to the Opposition and others and however truncated the debate on it, is still capable of repeal and replacement in a subsequent Parliament when a different party will occupy the Treasury Bench. It is not even what might be described as a domestic constitutional Bill, such as the Bill abolishing the metropolitan counties or the Bill on devolution for Scotland and Wales, for they, too, are capable of restoration or repeal in a subsequent Parliament.>
What is special about the Bill is that it gives legislative effect to a treaty concluded with other nations—the member states of the EEC—and upon whose institutions it confers additional legislative powers. Once passed, this measure cannot be repealed by a subsequent Parliament, unless that Parliament is prepared to tear up the underlying treaty itself—a special dimension of difficulty which I do not believe many … Members have even given serious thought to."—[Official Report, 1 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 937.]
Those words were spoken in opposition to the Single European Act by the then Shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney—now Lord Shore. That is the essence of this Bill and why it is important to us.
The Bill is a transfer from democratic institutions to other arrangements which are not democratic. The treaty gives more power to the European Parliament, extends competencies, extends qualified majority voting, redefines or re-emphasises citizenship and deals with other matters, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out. No one doubts that those issues are important; that is why we are fighting and struggling for a form of democracy that the Government are prepared—as were the previous Government—to wave goodbye to. There was seen to be greater grasp in conceding the democratic right to change the laws under which we live, but the equality of citizens is the first trust of democracy.
I have heard many a fine speech on these matters by the Foreign Secretary, but that is all out of the window now. Office has converted and changed his view, and that saddens me. In those days, the right hon. Gentleman contended fiercely with Sir Malcolm Rifkind across the Floor of the House; we well remember that. I believed—perhaps wrongly—that the trust that he held then in the democratic and detailed discussion of these points was important.

425
I take the imposition of a guillotine at this stage very seriously. Some 19 hours have been cited—in 19 hours a detail is passed away. I will now explain why this is important, and the contribution of the Single European Act, which went through with a guillotine motion far worse than the one that we are debating today. I accept all that. I disliked it then and I thought it inappropriate and wrong.
It is interesting that none of us understood entirely the weight of the argument. We were given assurances by Ministers that the Act could not be interpreted in certain ways. Those assurances were given and accepted in good faith, but we discovered—as they unwound—that they did not amount to much. Circumstances, judgments made by others elsewhere and qualified majority voting changed our understanding of the weight of constitutional arrangements. The unpicking of Maastricht laid open to the House the full ambition of this new constitutional arrangement.
Perhaps that is what the Foreign Secretary and his Front-Bench colleagues fear, but I think not. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he mentioned that the Government did not want their programme upset. We are in a medley of vast constitutional change—unbalanced, unthought and guillotined, for this is now the third guillotine of the new Parliament.
The Foreign Secretary is right to excoriate the Conservative party's past. Many of those who voted so triumphantly for guillotines are no longer here to see the outcome of their actions. We learned, and that is why I want the Foreign Secretary and his Front-Bench colleagues to reflect solemnly on this. The argument is very important, and each clause and chapter means something. This new constitution is beyond the reach of this House—other than, as Lord Shore said, by completely repealing the legislation. I do not think that most hon. Members want that.
The Government have—without understanding, I would contend—entered into a series of new agreements. The then Conservative Government found at the time of Maastricht that they had no understanding of the overall architecture of the legislation. Ministers negotiated little bits; the Home Secretary did the home affairs bit, the Foreign Secretary did this and Treasury Ministers did that, but no one stood back to look at the overall picture. Each could say, "My little bit is not so significant, as it is all part of a piece that is fine."
The then Home Secretary—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—to whom the Foreign Secretary referred, did not even know that the Queen was a citizen. There was no understanding of the constitutional changes and that is why a guillotine is inappropriate now. The Government should seriously reflect on that point. I fear that we shall see a process of guillotines; first, on Scotland. The Welsh business has been taken off the Floor of the House. The right of every hon. Member to speak on a matter of fundamental constitutional importance is being withdrawn from us.
The new Labour Government, in their first flush, have taken this opportunity to use their Back Benchers, who have not yet weighed the responsibilities of law making—this was true of my party in the past—to make a law which is, in terms of the treaty, irrevocable and irreversible.
9.33 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I come to this debate as a new Member; it is the first timetable debate in which I have taken part. Faced with a new Government who came to office talking about openness, change and cleaning up after those frightful Tories, one would have thought that the examples that they were quoting in the debate would not be examples from the previous Government—but that is what we are faced with. They cited the Single European Act 1985, and the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, cited the poll tax debates, to which I shall return in detail in a moment.
I have looked back at the various precedents. We have had 12 hours discussion in Committee on the Bill so far, and much of the talking has been done by Members from the Government side. The Minister for Europe spent an hour carefully summing up the points made by Members of all parties. That was a proper consideration in Committee of a treaty of fundamental importance. Once the treaty is signed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made absolutely clear, there is no way back except with the nuclear bomb of repealing the treaty in its entirety.
We have sat in Committee for three days. Each day we have started late—almost as late as 6 pm—and we have ended at 10 pm. I am not a zealot who says that we must discuss everything endlessly and that a minority should be allowed to obstruct Government business, but the Single European Act 1985 had 17.5 hours discussion in Committee, and that discussion was clearly subject to filibuster and obstruction by opponents of the treaty. I understand that up to an hour on each occasion was taken up with points of order, and clear delaying tactics were used. The Government's justification for introducing a guillotine was clear under "Erskine May", as my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said.
An extremely useful document from the Public Information Office of the House of Commons goes further and says:
"The guillotine is not lightly used, and is not applied without reason. The usual reason is to counter delaying tactics … amounting, in the government's view, to obstruction."
We have not had that in the 12 hours consideration of the Bill in Committee. I have listened to contributions from Members on both sides, and they have been constructive. I made one contribution myself. It is hardly as though certain hon. Members had constantly been getting up to obstruct the Government's purpose. So constructive were the contributions that it took the Minister for Europe an hour to sum up on the first occasion.
As a new Member, I wanted to find out whether 12 hours was a long time to consider the Bill in Committee. After all, we are only dealing with a treaty that we cannot do anything with. The motion will mean that we have considered it in Committee for less than 20 hours in total.
I looked up the other Bills that have been considered in this Session.The Finance Bill had 36.5 hours consideration in Committee, and that was not a Committee of the whole House, as it was not a measure of constitutional significance and parts of it can be repealed if the House so wishes; the Bank of England Bill had 30 hours consideration in Committee; and this Bill has had 12.

427
We heard sedentary interventions from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—or perhaps I should call him the Minister for beef on the bone and vitamin B6, as he has shown his contempt for the ability of the British people to make their own decisions and could be an embodiment of the nanny state. He spoke about the poll tax; when that legislation was before the House there had been 16 Committee sittings and 13 clauses had been considered before the Government introduced the guillotine motion. Indeed, after that guillotine motion there were a further 18 sittings. If that is the precedent that the Government are citing today, it is a pretty shabby and self-evidently thin one to present to the House on a measure of constitutional significance.
It was 110 years ago that Sir William Harcourt warned that great
"constitutional measures might be pushed through the House in a fortnight when the guillotine procedure was first introduced … All our parliamentary safeguards are now swept away.
Sir William was talking about the theoretical possibility of the disestablishment of the Church of England. We are faced here with a treaty which, once ratified by Parliament, we can do nothing more about in this place. The warning that Sir William gave 110 years ago is a real warning today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills talked about joining the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in opposing previous guillotine motions. On those occasions, the right hon. Gentleman was on the other side of the debate. On 22 February 1977, the right hon. Gentleman will find that he was voting on a guillotine measure on the Wales Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's principles seem to change, depending on which side of the Chamber he is sitting.
We are faced with a treaty of profound importance. In discussions about defence, I have talked about the progressive framing of a common defence policy—a significant Government concession. We have been discussing that policy in Committee at the same time as Defence Ministers of the United Kingdom, Germany and France have given instructions to their aerospace industries to produce proposals by 31 March for the reunification of a European aerospace industry.
There is an agenda of stealth and we are seeing it implemented before our eyes. The Government are forcing through decisions by cutting short discussions in Committee. At the same time, significant issues are running in tandem which are fundamentally changing the United Kingdom's position in the world, in Europe and in the United States. These issues are not being discussed because there is no opportunity to do so in the House.
We were in the middle of discussing qualified majority voting when the motion was put before the House. We heard the Foreign Secretary talking about a mandate from the electorate. He referred to the trust that it had been given and talked about the social chapter. The right hon. Gentleman did not set out the Government's policies on QMV. I accept that he promised to try to extend QMV in four areas, but he succeeded only in one: employment policy. The right hon. Gentleman conceded that there
428
were 14 other areas on which the British electorate had no idea that it was being asked to vote on 1 May, including public health.
We had to listen to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is turning into a pretty impressive food fascist. What we must endure from the hon. Gentleman is what the House and the Government will be able to do nothing about when faced with a diktat from the majority of member states of the European Union. We shall not have time to discuss these issues. We are left with the possibility of only about seven hours of debate in Committee.
The details of the treaty are not understood outside this place. I thought that we were sent to the House to get into the nitty-gritty of these issues. How can we expect our constituents to get to grips with these issues and understand them? It is a task which is virtually impossible except for those of us who are prepared to go through the detail, with the time to do so.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend said that people outside the House—the electorate, Mr. and Mrs. average citizen—do not understand what the issue is all about. Why, then, does every public opinion poll on entry into the single currency and further integration into Europe—the development of a federal state—show a substantial majority against? I believe that our people fundamentally understand the matter. That is why I believe that the House needs more time to explore the issues.
Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend is right to a degree. People have an instinctive understanding of the issues, but it cannot be a detailed understanding. They do not have the time to go through it. I worked in the Foreign Office for 18 months. Getting to grips with and preparing for the Committee on this legislation, working it through detail by detail, took far longer than what I did there. It deals with vital issues of national interest, especially defence and qualified majority voting. Hon. Members will identify issues of special concern to them.
Mr. Winterton: Is not one of the great problems that the House and the people outside whom we have the honour to represent face that people such as the Foreign Secretary—for whose manner of dealing with the matter in the past I have had immense respect and who before the general election was strongly anti-Europe—are now so positively pro-Europe?
Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point. We have watched most Labour Members turn themselves upside down on European policy not once, twice or three times, but four or five times in the past three decades. They are victims of fashion. They have no idea or understanding of where the basic interests of the United Kingdom lie. That is why they can table a measure to curtail discussion in Committee.
It is surely our duty to examine the Bill in detail constructively. We have not obstructed the Government. We have made proper progress on the Bill in Committee, yet we are now presented with a timetable motion with no warning, no suggestion through the usual channels that our guys are taking too long. It was suddenly banged down after we had made consistent progress over three

429
days. We were into the fourth day of discussion of serious issues. We were discussing qualified majority voting. We were taking part in constructive debate. It would have been fair enough to table the motion if no progress was being made, if the Opposition had been obstructing debate, but we were not. Conservative Members took care to ensure that there would be no grounds for the Government to make such a charge.
As a new Member, I have seen the House treated with contempt month after month since my arrival at the beginning of May. When the Government treat the House with contempt, they treat the people with contempt. We are told that nanny knows best. In the end, the children will grow up and they will understand what has been done to them in this House.
9.47 pm
Mr. John Hayes: I am pleased to have been present for a good part of our deliberations on this subject, because it is a matter of great significance and importance to the House and the nation. It is now clear that the Government do not see it that way. If they did, they would not have tabled the guillotine motion.
I can do no better than amplify the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I, too, went to "Erskine May". As a new Member, I sought guidance. I have not the experience, wit or charm of the Foreign Secretary. I am a humble patriot and a representative of ordinary men and women who value their freedom and independence. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has already suggested, "Erskine May" describes the use of the guillotine as
"the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities".
It goes on to say that the harshness of the procedure is
"to some extent mitigated either by consultation between the party leaders or in the Business Committee".
Has there been appropriate and proper consultation between the party leaders on the tonight's guillotine? I suggest that there has not. The introduction of this guillotine has been exercised with ruthless disregard not only for the House but for the subject of the debate.
After looking at "Erskine May", I considered the precedent for the use of guillotines. In this regard, I refer hon. Members to the debate on 1 July 1986, when the then right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, now a Labour peer, Lord Peter Shore, debated the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—not the one that we are dealing with today, but an earlier incarnation. On that occasion, he argued forcefully against the use of the guillotine. What grounds did he use? He said that the Bill was:
"not just another Bill relating to our domestic affairs … it is a Bill that directly affects the power of Parliament.
What is special about the Bill is that it gives legislative effect to a treaty concluded with other nations—the member states of the EEC—and upon whose institutions it confers additional legislative powers. Once passed, this measure cannot be repealed by a subsequent Parliament, unless that Parliament is prepared to tear up the underlying treaty itselr".—[Official Report, 1 July 1986; Vol.100, c.937.]
Precisely the same words could be used in tonight's debate. I am sure that Lord Shore would share the same opinion about the Government's behaviour tonight.
430
After studying "Erskine May" and precedent, I sought an explanation for the Government's extraordinary course of action. I studied the evidence given by the Foreign Secretary to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 4 November 1997. Of course, much of the loss of power which the Amsterdam treaty offers to the British people relates to the extension of qualified majority voting and subsequent loss of our veto. The right hon. Gentleman said of that:
"The use of the veto should only be exercised in circumstances of gravity and importance. The veto should not be exercised in circumstances which are frivolous or marginal."
The treaty will, however, reduce the powers of this sovereign state to veto legislation and it will extend to the procedures which allow for QMV in a range of areas. Perhaps those areas could be judged frivolous or marginal. Let us test them. Is employment policy frivolous and marginal? Is public health policy frivolous? What about equal opportunities—perhaps that is a little more frivolous, but I will not comment too much on that. [Interruption.] No, I do not want to distress the Stepford wives—there are only a couple of them here, but I do not want to upset them. Is regional policy frivolous and marginal? Is customs policy frivolous and marginal? Of course not. None of those policies is frivolous or marginal.
We have already heard a great deal about the treaty in respect of those policies, but I want to explore the fundamental truth about the treaty—it is a significant attack on British sovereignty. The Daily Telegraph—which I imagine is not widely read by Labour Members—[Interruption.] I look at The Guardian now and again—for the sport. The Daily Telegraph described the treaty as a degree of constitutional masochism and a
"self-mutilation of our democratic institutions."
A parallel difficulty in assessing the nature and extent of that mutilation is caused by the fact that the injuries are obscured by the coded nature of the language used to describe the problem.
The nature of the European debate is deliberately obscured and the plain facts distorted either by dressing them up in esoteric rhetoric or by the Euro-technique of using bizarre and colourful metaphors. We all know what they are: we are on a train or in a fast car or a slow car—presumably not a racing car, in the light of current circumstances. In short, we are always on some sort of journey to a pre-ordained destination over which we have little choice. It is rather like going on holiday to a place that one knows little about and will not especially like; the assumption is that that is the only place available to spend the vacation.
The result of this esoteric European debate is that the ordinary man and woman in the street feels isolated and remote from it, powerless to do anything about it. The saddest phrase that a democrat can hear is one that we frequently hear about the debate on Europe: "We don't understand it, so we leave it to other people. We aren't sure what it means, so we have to leave it to the experts." When a democrat hears such expressions from ordinary voters he—or she—should be very sad indeed.
Now, let us examine in detail what the treaty actually does. We heard in earlier speeches some discussion of unemployment. In that context, I want to draw particular attention to article 13, with which hon. Members will, no doubt, be familiar. The inclusion of religion, belief and

431
sexual orientation in the article—we are back to equal opportunities here—establishes a principle which may be given legal effect by the European Court of Justice. That could mean that Church schools could lose their freedom to employ only staff who support the ethos of the school. Faith-based voluntary organisations in the private sector could also be affected. Article 13 could restrict their freedom of association and their ability to employ only people who profess and practise in accordance with the organisation's beliefs and that, of course, does not apply to Christians alone. Employment law changes created by article 13 could have dramatic effects on those areas.
We have also heard about the worrying extension of the powers of the European Court of Justice over a range of other areas, and the greater powers for the secretary-general of the Commission, with little or no accountability, in foreign and security policy. There is also, of course, the matter that we were discussing before the guillotine motion was introduced—the significant extension of qualified majority voting.
Is this all in line with what we were promised when we decided to join the European Community? Of course not. Hon. Members will remember what happened at the time. As a young Conservative, I campaigned for a yes vote. I am prepared to bare my soul now and admit that. I was duped along with all the rest.
Indeed, I am still in favour of an association of sovereign nations, a free-trade Europe with countries combining and co-operating to get the best possible deal for their citizens. Of course Conservatives are pro-Europe—[Laughter.]—but pro-Europe in the sense and the spirit in which the people of Britain voted for Europe in the first place.
We were expressly told that there was no possibility of federalism. Do we all remember? To illustrate, I shall quote from the document that was distributed at the time, "Britain's New Deal in Europe". I remind Labour Members that many of them will have helped to distribute that document and used it to defend the idea of a yes vote in the referendum.
"Britain's New Deal in Europe" says
"No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and a British Parliament. The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member Governments. It is the Council of Ministers, not the Common Market officials, who take important decisions".>
It is hard to believe that now.
The document continued:
"These decisions can only be taken if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be considered to be against British interests".
We have travelled a long and sorry road since then, and all without the consent of the British people.
The Foreign Secretary listed the items to which qualified majority voting is being extended. They include employment guidelines, employment incentive measures, social exclusion, sexual discrimination, public health, transparency, countering fraud, statistics, the data protection advisory body, outermost regions and Customs co-operation. He failed to tell us that the Amsterdam
432
treaty allows states to make general agreements and to outline broad policy, and then to thrash out the detail under qualified majority voting. That category includes services and copyright negotiation, approximation of the police and the judiciary, and the common foreign and security policy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time) Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Question agreed to.
Mr. Hayes: I was grateful for that interruption to gather my notes and thoughts.
The social chapter is also in that category. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe drew attention to Jacques Delors's admiration for our opt-out, and his acceptance that, in areas such as inward investment, it gave us a significant advantage over our European counterparts.
It is worth returning briefly to the issue of copyright. The resulting agreement from the treaty on copyright seems to have been decided by qualified majority voting. If so, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not noticed that yet. It remains to be seen what long-term effect that will have on the importance of the German-based European copyright centre at the expense of the national office in the United Kingdom. I suspect that the London office will go out of business, and that will be another item of bad news for Great Britain.
The single currency has also been mentioned in the debate. I do not want to indulge in repetition. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said that repetition added nothing to the debate. I was reminded of how spiteful and vicious people in the centre of politics often are. People with strong, committed opinions on the left and the right are often accused of those vices, but some of the most vicious people are in the political centre. I do not want to be unkind to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I had to remind him of that truth.
Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend has perhaps chosen the one Liberal Democrat in the House who does not merit such a description.
Mr. Hayes: Indeed, I can add little to that.
Much has been said about the economic consequences of the single currency, whereas little has been said about the symbolism of the single currency and the transfer of Britain's gold reserves to Frankfurt.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the allocation of time motion, and not these wider issues.
Mr. Hayes: Absolutely. Had we not had this restriction of time, we would have been able to develop these issues more fully. It is because the debate has been curtailed in such a ruthless, cavalier fashion that we will not have time to explore these matters more fully.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Foreign Secretary referred time and again to the guillotine motion

433
introduced by the Conservative Government on the community charge legislation: more affectionately known as the poll tax. The introduction of a guillotine on that measure probably contributed to the defeat of the Conservative party in 1997. Should not thought be given to the fact that a guillotine is now being introduced on a matter of considerable importance, even though it has not been properly considered by the House? In the foreseeable future could not this guillotine lead to the defeat of new Labour and the transfer to government of the Conservative party?
Mr. Hayes: I can tell my hon. Friend that hon. Members and the wider public take a dim view of such a technique. When Parliament is scrutinised independently and empirically by the electorate, it is that sort of technique which tends to attract most criticism and contempt. As my hon. Friend suggests, Governments with large majorities and Prime Ministers with dodgy advisers—I see that the Minister without Portfolio is in his place—sometimes run to excess. I would not say that about the previous Government, but it may be a general principle.
I shall deal with the single currency and its symbolism in terms of time. We should not undersell, underplay or undervalue the principle of national identity. It is inclusive in that it brings a nation together and ensures that what unites us is greater than what divides us. We toy with national identity at our peril because, to use Blairite rhetoric, to do so would disempower the British people, not all of whom are winners or at the pinnacle of society or can reach the apex of their chosen profession or pursuit. However, they can share in the success, glory and progress of the country as a whole because they share a common national identity. We give that away in the treaty at great loss to those people especially.
I do not know whether it was through a lack of wit or a lack of will that the Government decided to sign the Amsterdam treaty. I cannot believe that it was through a lack of wit so it must have been an express lack of will. The Government have undoubtedly taken a profound step towards European political integration. I was concerned about that and I could barely believe that the Government would do it because I am a decent chap and wanted to believe the best of them so I tabled a couple of written questions to see whether the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister had left the negotiations early. I thought that perhaps the Foreign Secretary had popped out to place a bet. Not at all: he was there throughout, even when he was being stitched up by the Spanish Prime Minister on opt-ins and opt-outs:—so there is no excuse. Their action will dilute our national identity, endanger our national destiny and remove the exercise of political power further and further from ordinary, decent, law-abiding patriotic people such as those whom I and other hon. Members represent.
10.7 pm
Mr. William Cash: Some debates on this subject are becoming a little too friendly. There is a sort of convention in the House to the effect that, "Well, these things happen. Sometimes we put on guillotines and sometimes it happens the other way round. We do not need to worry too much about it. We can go through the formalities of debate but allow the whole matter to drift along." I do not feel at all friendly towards this guillotine
434
motion. What is more, I do not feel at all friendly towards the Government. This is a creepy-crawly guillotine motion and it is being introduced in circumstances that, by any reasonable standards, do not warrant it.
I have heard my hon. Friends describing the history of the guillotine. It is crystal clear that the Foreign Secretary refused twice to reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) as to why, in relation to the Single European Act, he—the Foreign Secretary—was opposed to the idea to a guillotine, along with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, yet, in relation to this Bill, the Government assume a degree of hypocrisy. They know perfectly well that the Single European Act was primarily about trade and a single market, whereas this Bill is about government.
The Bill is about the extension of those parts of the Maastricht treaty that raise the question I frequently asked during the Maastricht debate: who governs Britain? As I said to the Minister of State in the opening debate on the Bill, anybody with even a semblance of knowledge of the European Union knows perfectly well that the Amsterdam treaty is a gross extension of the integration of Europe and our absorption into a process that the Government intend will lead to the extinction of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. They know that, just as they know their devolution Bills fall into the same category: they are all part of a continuing process of the creation of a federal Europe and this Bill is part and parcel of that process. Therefore, the Bill is, on an accumulative basis, a Bill of the highest constitutional importance and under no circumstances can the precedents for a guillotine lead us to any conclusion other than that it should not have been imposed.
The comparison between the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty is irrelevant, because the Maastricht treaty was about government. The only positive thing I can say about the previous Government's attitude and their record on the Maastricht treaty is that the one thing they did right was not to impose a guillotine on the debate on that treaty. Now, because we had those debates and went into the issues thoroughly, people can form a judgment about who was right and who was wrong. There is a deliberate conspiracy to prevent the people of this country from knowing the full extent of what is contained in the Amsterdam treaty. That is why the guillotine is being imposed.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have immense regard for my hon. Friend and his knowledge of all the legislation relating to the European Unio, but is he not being a little generous in his comments about my party—our party—when in government and its action in imposing a guillotine on the Single European Act, which limited discussion? At that time, we accepted assurances from the leadership of our party that the light of experience shows were not worth the breath with which they were uttered. We have been saddled with a reduction in sovereignty, which the then Prime Minister assured us would not happen. Surely guillotines prevent the sort of discussion that is necessary if we are to explore in detail precisely what is involved in legislation.
Mr. Cash: I am bound to say that I have believed for a long time that the single market arrangements have not worked as intended. There were some profoundly

435
misleading aspects to that legislation, but, to return to my main point, as far as I am concerned, the Single European Act was primarily about trading relations with Europe, not about the governmental functions that are demonstrable in the Maastricht treaty and in the Amsterdam treaty. There is a distinction and it is important to make that point, but I do not wish to return to the subject of the Single European Act too often. I have reservations about it. It should have been reformed, and the Amsterdam conference would have provided a reasonable opportunity to do so. Of course, the Government had not the slightest intention of doing anything of the sort.
I have noticed that, of the amendments selected for debate, some 60 per cent. are in my name. It was essential to have a significant number of groupings in order to have a proper debate. I am absolutely clear that that debate is being frustrated despite the fact that there has been no filibuster. The Minister knows that he has not accused us of a filibuster; I have not picked up in the Lobbies any suggestion that there has been one. No serious commentator has suggested that we have made any attempt to frustrate proper discussion of the Bill.
In the Amsterdam treaty, the Government signed a protocol, which is binding on the Government, to provide for proper scrutiny by national Parliaments. As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation—which has been extremely critical of the manner in which national parliamentary scrutiny has been conducted-I find it unbelievable that we should be discussing a treaty that itself contains provisions for the improvement of national scrutiny, yet applying a principle that will deprive us of the opportunity of doing so. That is disgraceful. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it when he replies at the end of the debate. There is no filibuster; we are seeking to have proper national scrutiny—yet the Government are denying us even what is contained in the Amsterdam treaty as a matter of principle.
It is astonishing that the Committee proceedings have been almost literally unreported in the media by any newspaper or television or radio programme. It is astonishing that a matter of such importance should be ignored by the media. There is no proper means of communication. As I said in the first debate, the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons. There is evidence of that with the proceedings on this Bill.
We forced the previous Government—I make no apology for it—into serious debate of the Maastricht treaty. In fairness to the Government of the day, they gave us the debates we wanted. I tabled about 210 amendments to ensure proper discussion. However, because there was a relatively small majority and because, I think, there was a feeling in the country that huge issues of constitutional principle were involved, those debates were reported on a continuous and daily basis.
If we were to compare the governmental functions transferred under Maastricht—vital and massive as they were—with, for example, the extension of the legal area and the vast new powers being conferred on the European Court of Justice, we could conclude only that it is an absolute disgrace to hear hon. Members and Government spokesmen suggesting that this is not an important Bill. If they were to claim that they had not suggested that,
436
I would have to ask why they would want to impose a guillotine on something they have now admitted is important. There is an inherent contradiction in their position.
As other hon. Members have said, the treaty is intended to be irrevocable. It is intended to become part and parcel of our legal framework. It is beyond belief that we should not be renegotiating the treaty. I know that my right hon. Friends had it in mind that at some time we would have a referendum on the treaty. I believe—I think that the huge majority of people in this country share this view—that we should have had, and should yet have, a proper referendum on the Maastricht treaty and, indeed, on the consolidated treaty on European Union. To confine a referendum to the single currency is to duck many of the arguments to which the British people are entitled to give their consent.
I am particularly concerned that my new clause on renegotiation should be discussed. It says that the Bill shall not come into force until there is a new European conference, at which the state of the EU would be discussed and appropriate amendments would be tabled to determine the nature and extent to which renegotiation is necessary. From listening to what Labour Members said when they were in opposition, I know that many of them believe that aspects of the consolidated treaty on European Union, the Maastricht treaty and now the Amsterdam treaty require renegotiation.
Earlier today, we had a debate on fisheries policy. I heard people talking about reform of the common agricultural policy. How the hell is it possible to argue that we must reform those policies, which are subject to treaty arrangements, and then say that we are not going to renegotiate them? Are we to engage simply in a cherry-picking operation and renegotiate only things that are unimportant? Should we not consider the state of the EU as a whole?
In the light of today's discussions, I am driven to consider which are the subjects covered by the groups of amendments that remain for the Committee to debate. After qualified majority and the co-decision procedure, which is what we are currently on, is institutional change and flexibility.
As I said to the Prime Minister when he returned from Luxembourg the other day, is there not an inherent contradiction between his claiming that he should be included in all the discussions on this strange committee entitled Euro X and the fact that the Amsterdam treaty contains provisions on flexibility, which is why he is being excluded? As the Commission said some years ago, economic and monetary union is the best form of flexibility yet devised—and it is applying the principles of flexibility to exclude us from the discussions.
I do not have any truck with monetary union, but there is a fundamental contradiction between the Government's position on Euro X and the flexibility provisions. When the new grouping comes up shortly, we should have the opportunity to discuss flexibility with respect not merely to monetary union, but to all the other matters in the treaty on European Union. Flexibility is a generalised concept. It is intended to apply across the board, but I calculate that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will be given only one and a half hours to discuss that flexibility, the institutional changes and the free movement of persons and citizenship.

437
That is an outrage. The people of this country are entitled to know the views of hon. Members, who have been elected to represent them in Parliament, on fundamental questions that affect their freedoms. I am not asking for much. I ask for something small: that we be given a chance to have a proper discussion of matters that are of fundamental interest to our constituents. It is outrageous that the Government should have introduced a guillotine motion on a Bill of this constitutional magnitude, deliberately to deceive the British people into thinking that it is not as important as it really is.
There is a substantial irony in the origins of the guillotine procedure. Hon. Members may remember—or may at least have read—that it was introduced to deal with the Irish question. It was brought in to crush Parnell, who was seeking to obtain home rule for the Irish. The then Government were seeking to impose amended criminal law in Ireland, which Parnell and others opposed. Now, by an extraordinary irony, the procedure is being used to prevent us from retaining our sovereignty, which is effectively our home rule. It is being used to frustrate our sovereignty rather than enhance it. That is outrageous.
I have not heard one word from the Foreign Secretary about the fundamental principles that underpin the guillotine motion. He made a short speech full of specious and irrelevant nonsense about precedents and the Single European Act, but he is a man of great intelligence and perception and he knows perfectly well just how important the Bill is. The Government have adopted a minimalist approach and have managed, through the media, to spin doctor the message that the Bill does not really matter at all. That is one of the greatest deceits perpetrated on the British people for generations because the treaty and the Bill are hugely important, not merely politically but constitutionally. It is therefore essential that the guillotine motion is opposed.
Instead of chattering on the Front Bench, the Minister of State owes it to the House to give a proper explanation, which the Foreign Secretary denied us, of why this constitutional outrage is being perpetrated and why the guillotine is being imposed against all the relevant precedents.
10.27 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have attended the Committee's sittings assiduously. I would say that I have been here for every minute of every sitting and have spoken on every occasion. If one were to check Hansard, I reckon that one would find that I spoke for between five and seven minutes each time. I did not filibuster but made the points required of me carefully and cogently. I believe that to be the case, because, had it not been, I am sure that the Chairman at any given time would have called me to order. Indeed, had it not been the case, Labour Members would not have sought to intervene to make their own cogent remarks. There has been no filibustering on this Bill.
The fact is that it was the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) who spoke for half an hour, and the Minister of State for nearly a full hour.
Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but the Minister of State was giving the Committee proper
438
credit for the contributions made, and he treated the Committee with respect. I suspect that it is not his fault that we are debating the guillotine motion.
Mr. Swayne: That is indeed the case. I do not begrudge the Minister of State his hour. He was well worth listening to. In that hour, he strenuously attempted to deal with every point made by my colleagues.
I disagree with much of the Minister's analysis, but it was entirely appropriate that he should have taken an hour to express it, just as it was entirely appropriate that I should have spoken to three groups of amendments, because, during the general election campaign, anxieties on the subject matter dealt with by the Bill were expressed, entirely unsolicited, on virtually every doorstep in my constituency.
The people who expressed their concerns speak in this Chamber through me. That is the very basis of a representative democracy. This timetable motion, however, will deny them that opportunity. After Front Benchers have had their say, there will be very little time for Back Benchers to speak to the Bill.
We have a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom, although, I grant, we do not have a written constitution. We generally do not offer our people referendums, or include mandatory thresholds in those referendums. We also do not, unlike France or Germany, have a constitutional court. We do, however, have a constitutional convention, which states that, on constitutional matters, any hon. Member can have his say, without having written to the Speaker and hoping like hell that he will get a chance to speak. The convention is that any hon. Member can have his say by attending the Bill's Committee stage, which will be taken on the Floor of the House. Today's motion will ride roughshod over that convention.
It is all very well for Ministers to say, "This guillotine is your fault. If you had treated the Bill's Committee stage with some respect and not abused it, we would not have been driven to protect our parliamentary timetable for other Bills with this motion", but it was entirely disingenuous of the Secretary of State to say that the Bill has been debated on five days, because the debate on the Bill's Second Reading was entirely irrelevant to today's motion. Moreover, as he himself said, today he made another Second Reading speech. He said that the treaty will protect our borders, guarantee subsidiarity and implement Labour's election manifesto pledge to implement the social chapter. However, only by going through the Bill's detail in Committee will we discover that the treaty will do nothing of the sort. That is precisely why the Government want to kill the Bill's Committee stage; they want debate on the Bill to be silenced.
It is a matter not only of silencing hon. Members, who have every right to speak, but of using smoke and mirrors and of covering up the Second Reading speeches that have been made. A Committee of the whole House has debated the Bill for a total of 12 hours, which represents about three hours per group of amendments. That strikes me as entirely reasonable. If the Government are concerned about their legislative programme, why are they not prepared for the Committee to sit after 10 o'clock? Is the matter not of sufficient constitutional importance to do so? Do Ministers really need their beauty sleep so badly? I wonder. Why has every sitting of the Committee, with one exception, been preceded by a ministerial statement?

439
Many hon. Members have mentioned the Single European Act 1985 in this debate. That Act was debated for three full days. As I said, the Secretary of State was disingenuous when he said that the Bill had been debated on five days. That does not mean that it was debated for five days. In fact, it was debated for 12 hours.
Dr. Rudi Vis: The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for seven minutes.
Mr. Swayne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. I have made the points that I wished to make, so I shall take his cue to resume my seat.
10.34 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: However helpful or unhelpful Labour Members may be, I cannot promise that I shall be as compliant as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) in taking cues on how long I should speak.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said that the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons. The reason for that is behaviour such as that of the Government this evening. It is a privilege to follow so many thoughtful and passionate speeches from my hon. Friends, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made an outstanding contribution to the debate. I echo his point that the standing of the House of Commons is at stake when the Government treat Parliament in such a way as to demonstrate their disregard for democracy.
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was particularly important. I only wish that all new Members elected on 1 May could have heard it. I fear that many new Members do not have sufficient regard for the history, tradition and importance of this place as the guarantor of the freedom of the British people. My hon. Friend's speech brings that home.
It is desperately important that we should all remember why we are here. I am tempted to say that it is particularly important for new Labour Members, some of whom were not expecting to be elected on 1 May, but found themselves here—some with small majorities—and who may not be here for very long. Of course, we are all here for as long as our electors choose, but I fear that some who were elected on 1 May do not have sufficient regard for the institution of which we have the privilege to be Members, and that is most regrettable.
The low standing of the House of Commons has been compounded in recent months and years. I make no bones about it. Many questions and problems have been raised. Many people take the view that, at times during the past few years, the Conservative Government did not maintain the highest standards. However, what I find particularly worrying in the arguments for the guillotine motion that have been advanced rather sparingly in just one speech from the Government is the suggestion that, if the previous Government did it, it must be all right.
That is reflected in the behaviour of the new Government over the past few months. The formula one crisis involving Mr. Ecclestone gave the impression—
440
however unjustified—that the Government may have changed their policy because they received a donation of a considerable sum of money.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I know that the hon. Gentleman has newly arrived, but I recall that, in the last Parliament, the then Conservative Government, who had a majority of 29, introduced 82 guillotine motions. I cannot remember how many there were in the 1987 Parliament, but they were awfully frequent, given the Government's majority of 100. In the 1983 Parliament, the Government had a majority of 144, and they tried to shut us up on every possible occasion.
This is the first one in the current Parliament. I admit that I have been away for part of the time, so will the hon. Gentleman explain why a Government are not allowed to get their business through? What was sauce for the goose from 1983 to 1997 is surely sauce for the gander from 1997 onwards—probably to 2010.
Mr. Brady: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking the trouble to make my point for me. That is precisely the argument that I find so distressing and unsettling.
Dr. Vis: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Mr. Ecclestone gave £14 million to the Conservative party? If so, will he confirm that that might be related to the absence of any legislation about tobacco?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is not going to confirm anything of that nature. He is going to confine his remarks to the motion.
Mr. Brady: I am struggling to do so—although Labour Members appear to be engaging in a determined filibuster by raising matters that have no relevance whatever to the guillotine motion.
I was referring, in my valid point, to how the standing of Parliament is threatened by the behaviour in which the Government are engaging. This guillotine motion is an important instance of that. It adds to the distressing and unfortunate public view that Parliament is worthless, that it no longer represents the people of this country or has a genuine democratic function.
I am pleased to see the Foreign Secretary in his place again—almost by magic—because I am about to refer to a point that he made in his opening speech. [HON. MEMBERS."Go on, then."] I thank Labour Members for their helpfulness in trying to move me on to my point.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said that the Foreign Secretary gave two novel justifications for the guillotine motion in his introductory speech—first, that unanimity is required on the Opposition Benches for such business, and secondly that a very large majority on Second Reading obviates the need for a proper Committee.
I think that a third very worrying and novel justification was advanced. It was suggested that, because the Government won a large majority on 1 May, there was no need for a proper Committee stage. Democracy does not end in this country when we have a general election. It is important that we recognise that democracy continues through the Parliament. We are sent here as

441
representatives of our constituents, not merely to implement what may be in a rather sparse election manifesto, of whichever party.
I am tempted to say that, on 1 May, just as all Labour voters may have thought and known that they were voting for incorporation of the social chapter, they all thought and believed that they were voting against a cut in benefits for single mothers. The Foreign Secretary's argument does not stand up when he is prepared to be so selective about which parts of Labour's manifesto and which pledges are considered sacrosanct, and which ones can be thrown away without regard. That is of great concern to hon. Members.
Suggestions, especially by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), that the Bill has been filibustered need to be refuted. There has been no filibuster. Indeed, most hon. Members would agree that good progress has been made. In 12 hours, we have spent, on average, three hours on each group of amendments.
I make no criticism of the Minister of State, but he made the longest speech of the proceedings when he spoke for almost an hour in winding up. The second longest speech was from another Labour Member. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) spoke for 30 minutes—far longer than any Conservative Member's speech. If the Government are contending that their own Members are filibustering business, it is rather a bizarre accusation to lay at our door.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone spoke about the origins of the guillotine motion in 1887 in proceedings on the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill. It is particularly telling that Gladstone called the proposal
"a further abridgement of Parliamentary liberty".
That was in the days when we had a Liberal party which was worthy of the name, which we no longer do.
The speech by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife suggested that his party is also unworthy of the name of democrat. It has not only given away any claim to represent the liberal traditions of the House and British democracy, but it has given up its claim to represent any true democracy by trying to frustrate proper debate on the Bill.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: How many of the guillotine motions imposed by the previous Conservative Government in the last Parliament would the hon. Gentleman have opposed?
Mr. Brady: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I was not here, and it is difficult to answer a hypothetical question. I can say that one should give serious thought to a request to support a guillotine motion on a constitutional measure of the importance of the Bill. When we debate legislation that will give away power that belongs to the House, to this country and to the British people, who are sovereign, we do not have the right to throw it casually away. That is the nub of the matter.
Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the critical issue is the ability of this Parliament to restore or repeal legislation such as the Bill? Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) should be more selective about guillotine measures, because the legislation is of especial constitutional importance. It is
442
not even a domestic matter, but involves legislation that could not be subsequently repealed: that is the fundamental point.
Mr. Brady: To quote the Prime Minister for perhaps the only time, "My hon. Friend is absolutely right." I cannot add anything further to his point.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to reflect on the matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). When we debated the Maastricht treaty in the last Parliament—unfortunately, my hon. Friend was not here—we sat night after night and day after day, democratically and without a guillotine motion, to discuss matters of grave constitutional importance. We are now being denied that right, and I fully support the comments that my hon. Friend has made.
Mr. Brady: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
As I was saying, it is bizarre that the only points of any substance have been made by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and not by the Foreign Secretary. The hon. and learned Member appeared to ridicule our demand for a referendum on the Bill, which made me wonder whether he thinks that the treaty is more or less important than the legislation that will establish the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. Is the treaty more or less important than what the Prime Minister referred to as the creation of a sort of parish council?
I believe that the treaty is more important. We had referendums on the Scottish and Welsh issues, which are less significant constitutionally than the Bill, because it will transfer power out of the United Kingdom. However, the hon. and learned Member does not believe that it would be appropriate to engage in the same consultation of the British people as was granted to the people of Scotland and Wales.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described the Amsterdam treaty as a mouse of a treaty. In those circumstances, why do the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends attach such importance to it? Perhaps they believe that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was wholly unfounded.
Mr. Brady: I make no bones about the fact that I do not share the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe on that matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not answer my point about whether it is more important to establish a parish council in Edinburgh or Swansea than to transfer massive new powers to Brussels, which is outside the United Kingdom. That is the central point.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife also alleged that there had been repetition in the speeches by Conservative Members, but that does not have any foundation. He has only recently faced any danger of repetition by Liberal Democrat Members, because he has been alone in his place for most of the debate. He claimed that his loneliness on the Liberal Democrat Benches showed the confidence that his Back-Bench colleagues have in his abilities. For much of the evening, that confidence clearly has been total.
Mr. Hayes: I wish to refer to the Government. Labour Members have been remarkably silent; not one, other than

443
the Foreign Secretary, has spoken so far. Are we witnessing not only a deliberate attempt to suppress the views of the House as a whole on a major constitutional issue, but the use of the iron discipline of the Government Whips to prevent Labour Members from saying anything on the motion?
Mr. Brady: Again, it would be a great cause for concern if Labour Members with a view on a matter of such constitutional significance were dissuaded from speaking their minds.
Dr. Vis: We have heard a lot about filibustering. I have been sitting here for an hour, and the last three Conservative Members have repeated one another. Why does the hon. Gentleman not speak to the motion? We have heard nothing about it. He should speak his mind, rather than saying he is not filibustering. I have heard 17 times that he is not filibustering.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) certainly is not filibustering, because I would stop him if he were doing so.
Mr. Brady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have seen no evidence, either this evening or on other occasions, that the Chair has been anything other than punctilious in controlling the House. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) has made two lengthy interventions during my speech, which leads me to wonder whether he, rather than my hon. Friends, is trying to filibuster.
It is important to stand up for the rights of Back Benchers in these important matters, so that we do not limit our consideration merely to what our Front-Bench colleagues say. The Government's attitude to Parliament, which we see again in this measure—as we have seen so often since 1 May—demonstrates a lack of confidence in their own ability to make a case. They are concerned that, if they come here and allow a proper, full debate, their case will not stand up to scrutiny.
The transfer of power that we see in the treaty and in the legislation to enact it is entirely consistent, I would argue, with the behaviour of the Government. They have no regard for the standing of Parliament or for our democracy here, and they are transferring the powers of the British people to undemocratic bodies across the sea. In so doing, they are acting exactly the same as when, in the House, they refuse to allow proper debate. That is why we should oppose the motion.
10.52 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: When the Committee's consideration of the Bill was suspended, I was on my feet. When I heard that the Government were rushing through a guillotine motion, I was tempted to ask, "Was it something I said?"
We heard the Foreign Secretary set out rather more substantive reasons for the motion, and I shall confine my remarks to some of the arguments he advanced. The first, and perhaps the most important, argument for any guillotine motion is that the Government have to protect their parliamentary time to ensure the passage of their
444
business. That is a little curious, given the way in which the Government have handled parliamentary time since their election.
If the Government were concerned about parliamentary time, why did they rush forward with an emergency Budget at a time of widespread and well-acknowledged national prosperity, instead of waiting until November? A great deal of parliamentary time was consumed on a Finance Bill much earlier than was necessary. If there was a shortage of parliamentary time, why was the House dismissed at the end of July and not called back until very nearly November? If there is such a shortage of parliamentary time, why is the House to be dismissed before Christmas and brought back not the week after new year, but the following week?
Indeed, if there is such a shortage of parliamentary time—so much so that a Bill of fundamental constitutional significance cannot be properly debated—surely we should look again, at least temporarily, at the Jopling reforms. I speak as someone who supports those reforms. Lord Jopling, as he now is, is my predecessor. Let us consider the sitting hours of the House and invite it to sit on mornings other than Wednesdays and on more Fridays.
If there is really a profound lack of parliamentary time, the Government can easily provide that time through any of the means that I have identified, but the truth is that there is a lack not of time but of Government will to have debate, and that is a very different matter.
The Foreign Secretary advanced the bizarre argument that some of our points were frivolous, citing as an instance of that frivolity and absurdity the proposition from my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary that it is possible for our European partners to misinterpret an agreement, to isolate us 14 to one and to gang up on us.
I know that there is a state of cordial mutual loathing among members of the Cabinet, but I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary ever speaks to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who, at the beginning of the week, said precisely that our partners had misinterpreted and broken an agreement and had ganged up on us 14 to one against our national interest. Perhaps those arguments are not quite so frivolous.
The Foreign Secretary then advanced the mandate argument. That is dangerous territory for him. He said that, because the people had spoken, Conservative Members should not speak; but we have a mandate, too. We were elected to the House on precisely the same basis as Government Members.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Not a lot of you.
Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman only ever speaks from a sedentary position. It is very sad that he is not able—or perhaps he is not permitted—to stand up and make a speech. He is a free Member of Parliament, despite what the Whips may tell him. Perhaps he could occasionally contribute from a standing position.
As the hon. Gentleman says that not many of us were elected, let us consider the mandate that the Government secured. They got 42 per cent. of the vote, which is exactly the percentage that I secured in my constituency, so if the Government have a mandate, so do 1. On the share of the vote, we did better, even in this dreadful

445
election year for us, than the Labour party did in 1983. I do not remember the Labour party saying that it had no mandate to speak in Parliament between 1983 and 1987 and would remain silent. The mandate argument does not work.
Mr. Bermingham: I do not know whether the rule of rewriting history now applies, but I seem to remember participating in the 1983 general election, in which we got 200-plus seats—it was a pretty poor year for us—and the Conservative majority was about 144, whereas we now have a majority of goodness knows what, in the region of 170, with about 418 seats. The hon. Gentleman may have been a bit young in those days, but those of us who were around then know that his figures are wrong. Let us face it: one cannot prove anything by twisting statistics to back up a very poor case.
Mr. Collins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that he has indeed been knocking around for rather longer than I have, but I should point out that our share of the vote in the general election was 31 per cent., while his party's share in 1983 was 28 per cent.
The Foreign Secretary had an even more interesting argument on the mandate. He said that every single person who voted Labour on 1 May knew perfectly well that the Labour party intended to take us into the social chapter on precisely the basis encased in the Bill, with all the consequent implications for the extension of qualified majority voting.
That would have come as a surprise to those who read articles in the Daily Mail and other newspapers earlier this year saying that the Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—would take us in only on the basis that we could pick and choose individual measures entirely on their merits. That is not the basis on which the Bill has been introduced, and that is not the treaty that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary brought back from Amsterdam.
The Foreign Secretary argued that there was simply no alternative to the Bill, and that it was a matter of consistency. He said that because Conservative Members had supported guillotines in the past, it was necessary for us to support them now.
If ever a man was on dangerous territory in making an argument about the virtue of consistency, it is the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman used to have a moral objection to nuclear weapons. He now serves as Foreign Secretary in a Government who are deploying Trident. The Foreign Secretary used to have an objection on the ground of sovereignty to the United Kingdom being a member of the European Economic Community. The right hon. Gentleman objected to being in the Common Market. He is now a starry-eyed enthusiast for an ever more federal Europe.
The Foreign Secretary used to believe in mass nationalisation. He now serves in a Government who are carrying out privatisation measures. The right hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the allocation of time motion should be supported on the ground of consistency. He is perhaps one of the most inconsistent politicians that the House has seen for many a long year. His arguments have been dismissed, and so should the motion be.
11 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: On 13 January 1994, an experienced Member stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and complained that in introducing a timetable motion the then Government showed
"a callous disregard for our democratic procedures".
The hon. Gentleman protested
"The way in which the Government have tried to force through the business is a contempt of the House."
He added
"The procedure that we are now discussing is completely unnecessary. We are using time to discuss the guillotine motion that we could have used to discuss aspects of the Bill which are important to hon. Members."
The hon. Gentleman described the then Government's approach as an "affront to democracy". He attacked the Government's conduct, saying that it had
"been wholly reprehensible and unacceptable".—[Official Report, 13 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 384–87.]
That hon. Gentleman was the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), the very person who will respond to the debate on behalf of the Government and force the guillotine on us. On 13 January 1994, the hon. Gentleman was talking about a domestic Bill that could be set aside by later Parliaments; we are talking about an international treaty that cannot be set aside by a subsequent Parliament. What was an "affront to democracy" and a contempt of the House only three years ago is now the very policy that the Minister adopts.
The sad feature is that that background will not trouble the Minister in the slightest—to say one thing one day and do precisely the opposite a little while later. Some might say that such a capacity is a necessary precondition for joining the Government, who are without values and principles.
Mr. Mike Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he voted on the guillotine motion on 13 January 1994?
Mr. Streeter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, it is not our case that it is always wrong for a Government to introduce a guillotine motion. However, when a Government are dealing with a constitutional issue they should proceed with the utmost caution. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument.
Some would say that it is a necessary precondition for a Member joining the Government, an Administration without values and principles, to learn quickly to say one thing one day and do the opposite just a while later. Ministers say one thing and do another. Policies that they opposed in opposition are adopted in government. Parliament is treated with that contempt.
We should not even be debating the motion. The Amsterdam treaty is an important constitutional treaty; that is why it has been debated on the Floor of the House. It makes important changes to our relationship with the European Union. It makes changes that cannot easily be undone. As so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, it will give more power to the European Parliament.

447
It provides for an extension of qualified majority voting. It includes the social chapter and a new employment chapter, which will impose new regulations on British people. It makes new arrangements for border controls and moves us closer to an integrated foreign and security policy. It changes the law on subsidiarity and it gives more power to Presidents of the Commission. All those things, and many more besides, are surely worth more than a cursory glance from the House. We are, after all, elected as a check on the Executive.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I wish to apologise to the shadow Foreign Secretary, to whom I inaccurately attributed a reference to the position of the high representative, as covered by one of the articles of the Amsterdam treaty. I was wrong to do so and I have apologised to him informally; it is only right that I should put the record straight formally.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) has given an eloquent, in his terms, justification for his opposition to the guillotine on the Bill on the ground that it raises constitutional issues. Did not the Single European Act raise the same constitutional issues?
Mr. Streeter: The hon. and learned Gentleman apologises in his usual gracious way. He makes an important point, but there are at least two features that distinguish this measure from the Single European Act.
After all that I have said about the importance of the Bill, after only three days the Government have tabled a guillotine motion. It was not even three full days. The first day's debate started not at 3.30 pm but at 5.55 pm; the second at 5.30 pm; the third at 5.50 pm. On each day, at least two hours of debate was lost to Government statements. What should have been 18 hours of debates became 12. We have not had three days but a mere 12 hours.
On each day, the Government did not move a 10 o'clock motion. They did not even table one on any of those days, so cynical and predetermined was their desire to stifle debate. They did not bother because they knew that they would not use it. We had late starts and early endings, a truncated debate from day one. We are driven to the clear conclusion that the Government never wanted a proper examination of the treaty that they brought back from Amsterdam. There are two obvious reasons for that. First, they know that they failed at Amsterdam. They gave away far too many concessions with absolutely nothing in return.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): Will the hon. Gentleman not be as generous as some Conservative Members and at least acknowledge that after I had listened to the debate on the first set of amendments for a day and a half, I spent nearly an hour thoroughly covering the points that had been raised? I resent any suggestion that I have not taken the Bill or the scrutiny of the House seriously.
Mr. Streeter: The Minister makes my point for me. Substantial points were raised to which he needed an hour to respond. It was not filibustering. They were not frivolous points. If they had been, he would not have bothered to reply. He took an hour to reply to a substantive debate.
448
The Prime Minister told the House on Monday that every country fights for its own interests at European summits. What a pity he did not realise that in June when he went to Amsterdam. No wonder he was more popular at Amsterdam than at Luxembourg. The Government want to stifle democratic debate and proper scrutiny of Bill to cover up their failings at the negotiating table. It is a cynical cover-up from a Government without values or principles.
The second reason why the Government want to curtail debate is because they treat Parliament with contempt. From the moment that they were elected, they have used every trick in the book to avoid debate and bypass scrutiny. The mother of Parliaments has been shuffled off to a retirement home. After a paltry 12 hours of debate, a major constitutional issue has been given the chop.
Throughout their remarks, Labour Members have suggested that Conservative Members have tried to filibuster the debate. Even a brief glance at Hansard confirms that nothing could be further from the truth. In the first three days, only 10 hon. Members spoke for more than 20 minutes: five Conservative Members and five Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) who spoke for 30 minutes, though I still do not know what he said.
The Minister took nearly an hour to reply to the first debate, although we do not criticise him for that. It is clear from what I have said that no filibustering has taken place. We have been restrained in the number of amendments that we have tabled. The average length of a Back-Bench contribution in the three days of debate has been 14 minutes. No wrecking tactics have been deployed or points of order raised. We have had a constructive and important debate throughout.
Real progress has been made. We have finished consideration of the first three groups of amendments, and consideration of the fourth group is well under way. The time taken to discuss those amendments averages three hours of debate per group of amendments, which is a reasonable rate of progress on a major constitutional Bill.
Because of the guillotine motion, debate on all the remaining amendments and new clauses will be squeezed into two days—on the Government's record that will become two half-days. We will not be able to scrutinise the Bill and debate the amendments properly. That means that we will be unable to examine fully the extra powers given to the President of the Commission to veto our nominee as Commissioner, which is an important point. We will not be able scrutinise in detail the implications of the new provisions in the treaty that state that all Commissioners must act under the political guidance of the President of the Commission. In effect, that makes those Commissioners members of a European Cabinet.
We will not have time to study properly the extra powers given to Europol. We will be unable to do justice to the new provisions on subsidiarity and proportionality. We will have precious little time to probe the Government again about their disgraceful blunder on the border controls opt-in. There will no real opportunity to consider the extensions of power of the European Court of Justice and its complete lack of reform. We will not have time to discuss the cost to our taxpayers of the inclusion, for the first time in a treaty, of the fact that the European Parliament will be permanently located in both Brussels and Strasbourg.

449
Those are all important matters, but the truth is that, thanks to the motion, we will not have time to discuss them properly. The Government have cited the Single European Act as a precedent for guillotining a constitutional measure after three days of debate. Well, they are wrong on two counts. In 1986, the debates were much longer each day, so that in three days nearly 20 hours of debate took place, not 12 hours as in this case. Secondly, in 1986, virtually no progress was made in those first three days. Many points of order were raised at the start of each sitting and there was ample evidence of delaying tactics.
We have made real progress on this Bill, and we are now discussing the fourth group of amendments. There is no justification for citing the Single European Act as a precedent. To spare the Foreign Secretary's blushes, although I suspect that he does not blush easily, I point out only in passing that he voted against the guillotine motion in 1986. It was wrong then, but apparently it is right now. That is hardly a basis for using that legislation as a precedent for the motion.
If we take all those matters together, it is clear that the timetable motion is the act of an arrogant Government, who ride roughshod over Parliament. It is the action of a Government prepared to unstitch our constitution without considering the long-term implications.
We all know that there is a nasty authoritarian streak in the Government. When their Members of the European Parliament speak out, they gag them. When their own Back Benchers get into difficulty, they ditch them. When Labour Members, on the Government's own Benches, vote with their conscience, they are reprimanded. The Government see their Back Benchers as mere cannon fodder, part of a factory farm production line. Under new Labour, only the spin doctors are free range.
It is a Government who think that nanny knows best, but it is the only nanny I know who hates her own children. I have no doubt that they will get their way tonight. They have such a large majority they can do what they like. It would be nice if the Liberal Democrats and Members of the other minor parties joined us in the Lobby. I should have thought that the Liberal Democrats were becoming ever more fearful of the Government's desire to control and bully, but I see that they have sold out to their coalition partners. Now we know what constructive opposition means: they do what they are told by the Minister without Portfolio.
The Minister of State is an honourable man. I do not want to ruin his career, but I want to say this to him: I like him. I shall not scream hysterically at him, but simply tell him that what he is doing tonight is wrong, and he knows it.
We have been conducting a constructive and positive scrutiny of a major treaty. It has had just 12 hours' debate, and in bringing down the guillotine so prematurely and unnecessarily, the Minister is sending a clear signal to the nation: the Government will stop at nothing to get their own way. Lone parents, the disabled, their own Back Benchers; the Government will trample over them all if it suits their wider political purposes, whatever they are.
What the Government are doing is wrong, and we shall oppose it.
11.15 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): The Government have been accused of having an authoritarian streak. I know that the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) was not referring to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—although he could perhaps have been referring to my past. My answer to him is that the Government will have a majority tonight not because of an authoritarian streak but because we have a majority of the Members of the House, and because the majority of the British people want a Labour Government, and what that means for their life style.
My right hon. Friend said earlier that he looked forward to hearing "virtuous indignation" from the Conservatives. He has not been disappointed. We have heard the same empty arguments, the same double standards and the same Second Reading speeches as we have already heard in Committee, as well as on the original Second Reading.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made a telling point when he said that everything had been said, but everyone had not yet said it. That was so true of the Committee stage, and he has been right again about the contributions that we have heard tonight.
Like me, the hon. and learned Member knows that if there were no guillotine motion, the Bill would be sent into a siding because of the behaviour of Conservative Members. Those on the Opposition Front Bench may or may not believe that it would be in their interests to send the Bill into a siding. They may judge that the British people might misinterpret their motives were they to do that, when the present Government have achieved in the treaty aims that the previous Government wanted, but failed, to achieve.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Henderson: Not just now.
However, even if that were the judgment of the main Opposition spokesmen, they would not be able to deliver it to the House because they have no control over the hon. Members who sit behind them. I see the shadow Foreign Secretary smiling, and he has obviously acknowledged the point.
Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
Mr. Henderson: There have been double standards throughout the debate.
Mr. Blunt: How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that he is speaking to a guillotine motion with the following:
"DESIRING … to encourage greater involvement of national parliaments in the activities of the European Union and to enhance their ability to express their views on matters which may be of particular interest to them"?
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman raises the point, but—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The Government and the Labour party believe in parliamentary democracy,

451
but we will not have it obstructed by a few obstructive individuals on the Opposition Benches who are not prepared to accept the importance and relevance of the treaty of Amsterdam to the people of Britain.
As for double standards, I thought that the hon. Member for South-West Devon was a bit stupid to talk about my opposition to a guillotine in 1994, because at that time he opposed my position, and voted for the guillotine.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I sat opposite each other many times during the last Parliament when we were dealing with home affairs. It is a bit rich for him to argue against a guillotine on the Amsterdam treaty, when he supported the 82 guillotine motions that the Conservative Government introduced during that Parliament.
Mr. Howard: Eighty five.
Mr. Henderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there were 85. In the Parliament before that, he imposed a guillotine on the poll tax legislation. I served on the Committee considering water privatisation, which was also guillotined. It is again a bit rich for him to say that we should not vote for a guillotine on the treaty of Amsterdam, when he voted for a guillotine on the Single European Act in 1986. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said that that was a far more damning guillotine motion than the one before us.
If the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen had come to me to discuss a timetable for the Bill, we would have had ample time to debate the various aspects. I consider that the three days in Committee that we have already had, plus the prospect of a further two days, is a reasonable amount of time.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Henderson: No, I shall not give way.
Five days in Committee plus one day on Second Reading is a reasonable time to dispose of the issues involved in the Bill.
Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition made such an offer on the Government of Wales Bill, but the Government rejected it out of hand?
When will the Minister answer the question that I posed to the Foreign Secretary? Will he identify one of the three criteria that, according to the Home Secretary, must be satisfied before a guillotine can be justified? I did not oppose the motion on the basis that we can never have a guillotine: I said that it must be justified on one of the three criteria. Which of those criteria is relevant to this guillotine motion?
Mr. Henderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows of my close association with the Home Secretary, and I can tell him that all the Home Secretary's criteria apply to the Bill. The House must deal with this legislation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, his
452
colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench and the more experienced Conservative Members behind him know that if there were no guillotine, there would be no prospect of the Bill seeing the light of day in any reasonable time.
This is an important issue, and we must try to allow the right amount of time to debate it. I am sympathetic to timetabling motions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know from my days in opposition that I was prepared to reach agreement on a timetable to allow practical discussion of the issues involved. The Conservative Government knew that if they had a deal with us on the timetabling of legislation, that deal stuck, because we were a united Opposition. The problem for the present Opposition is that even if they wanted to deliver a deal, they could not do so, because they cannot deliver the votes of Conservative Members.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, this is an important Bill, because it provides real benefits for the people of this country. The treaty gives, for the first time, explicit legal authority for Britain to retain its border controls; it confirms NATO as the cornerstone of our defence; it provides a fuller, legally binding basis for the principle of subsidiarity; it provides for tougher action on fraud against the Community budget; and it obliges the European Union to give greater priority to protecting the environment, promoting openness in its proceedings, and to tackling unemployment. I say again to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it also extends to an issue that was well debated before the general election and on which the Government have an explicit mandate from the electorate—the social chapter, which extends to workers in this country the same rights as workers in other parts of Europe.
As was made clear on Second Reading, the Bill has the support of the House. The Government have a mandate for their programme. We have a duty to put into effect our legislative proposals and to make sure that the legislation and other measures are not frustrated by a small number of Opposition Members. We shall make sure that we exercise that responsibility, and we ask the House to support the motion.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 352, Noes 144.

Division No. 123]

[11.25 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Ainger, Nick

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Alexander, Douglas

Bennett, Andrew F

Allan, Richard

Benton, Joe

Allen, Graham

Bermingham, Gerald

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Best, Harold

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Betts, Clive

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Blackman, Liz

Ashton, Joe

Blears, Ms Hazel

Atherton, Ms Candy

Blizzard, Bob

Atkins, Charlotte

Boateng, Paul

Austin, John

Borrow, David

Baker, Norman

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Banks, Tony

Bradshaw, Ben

Barnes, Harry

Brake, Tom

Battle, John

Brand, Dr Peter

Bayley, Hugh

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Beard, Nigel

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Browne, Desmond

Begg, Miss Anne

Buck, Ms Karen

453

Burgon, Colin

Fyfe, Maria

Byers, Stephen

Galbraith, Sam

Caborn, Richard

Galloway, George

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gapes, Mike

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gibson, Dr Ian

Canavan, Dennis

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Cann, Jamie

Godman, Norman A

Casale, Roger

Goggins, Paul

Caton, Martin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Cawsey, Ian

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Chaytor, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Chidgey, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grocott, Bruce

Clapham, Michael

Grogan, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Gunnell, John

Clark, Dr Lynda

Hain, Peter

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hancock, Mike

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Harris, Dr Evan

Clelland, David

Healey, John

Clwyd, Ann

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Coaker, Vernon

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hepburn, Stephen

Cohen, Harry

Heppell, John

Colman, Tony

Hesford, Stephen

Connarty, Michael

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hill, Keith

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Hoey, Kate

Cooper, Yvette

Home Robertson, John

Corbett, Robin

Hoon, Geoffrey

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hope, Phil

Corston, Ms Jean

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Cotter, Brian

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cousins, Jim

Howells, Dr Kim

Cranston, Ross

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cummings, John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hurst, Alan

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hutton, John

Davidson, Ian

Iddon, Dr Brian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Illsley, Eric

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Ingram, Adam

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jenkins, Brian

Denham, John

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Doran, Frank

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Dowd, Jim

Drew, David

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Edwards, Huw

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Efford, Clive

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Ennis, Jeff

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Etherington, Bill

Keeble, Ms Sally

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Fatchett, Derek

Kemp, Fraser

Fisher, Mark

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Khabra, Piara S

Flint, Caroline

Kidney, David

Flynn, Paul

Kilfoyle, Peter

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Kirkwood, Archy

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Foulkes, George

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

454

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Prosser, Gwyn

Laxton, Bob

Quin, Ms Joyce

Lepper, David

Quinn, Lawrie

Leslie, Christopher

Rammell, Bill

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rapson, Syd

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Raynsford, Nick

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

Linton, Martin

Rendel, David

Livingstone, Ken

Robertson, Rt Hon George

Livsey, Richard

(Hamilton S)

Lock, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Love, Andrew

Rooker, Jeff

McAllion, John

Rooney, Terry

McAvoy, Thomas

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McCabe, Steve

Rowlands, Ted

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Roy, Frank

McDonagh, Siobhain

Ruane, Chris

Macdonald, Calum

Ruddock, Ms Joan

McDonnell, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McFall, John

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Ryan, Ms Joan

McIsaac, Shona

Sanders, Adrian

McNamara, Kevin

Savidge, Malcolm

McNulty, Tony

Sawford, Phil

MacShane, Denis

Sedgemore, Brian

Mactaggart, Fiona

Shaw, Jonathan

McWalter, Tony

Sheerman, Barry

McWilliam, John

Shipley, Ms Debra

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Mallaber, Judy

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mandelson, Peter

Skinner, Dennis

Marek, Dr John

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Maxton, John

Snape, Peter

Meale, Alan

Soley, Clive

Merron, Gillian

Spellar, John

Michael, Alun

Squire, Ms Rachel

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Milburn, Alan

Steinberg, Gerry

Miller, Andrew

Stevenson, George

Moffatt, Laura

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Moore, Michael

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stoate, Dr Howard

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Stringer, Graham

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Swinney, John

Mountford, Kali

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Mudie, George

(Dewsbury)

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Norris, Dan

Temple-Morris, Peter

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

O'Hara, Eddie

Timms, Stephen

O'Neill, Martin

Tipping, Paddy

Öpik, Lembit

Todd, Mark

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Palmer, Dr Nick

Touhig, Don

Pearson, Ian

Trickett, Jon

Pendry, Tom

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Perham, Ms Linda

Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

Pickthall, Colin

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pike, Peter L

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Plaskitt, James

Tyler, Paul

Pope, Greg

Vaz, Keith

Pound, Stephen

Vis, Dr Rudi

Powell, Sir Raymond

Walley, Ms Joan

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Wareing, Robert N

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Watts, David

Primarolo, Dawn

Webb, Steve

455

White, Brian

Wood, Mike

Wicks, Malcolm

Wray, James

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

(Swansea W)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Winnick, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. David Jamieson.

Wise, Audrey

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Hunter, Andrew

Amess, David

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Jenkin, Bernard

Baldry, Tony

Johnson Smith,

Beggs, Roy

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Bercow, John

Key, Robert

Beresford, Sir Paul

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Blunt, Crispin

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Body, Sir Richard

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Boswell, Tim

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Lansley, Andrew

Brady, Graham

Leigh, Edward

Brazier, Julian

Letwin, Oliver

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lidington, David

Bums, Simon

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Butterfill, John

Loughton, Tim

Cash, William

Luff, Peter

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

(Chipping Barnet)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Chope, Christopher

MacKay, Andrew

Clappison, James

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Madel, Sir David

(Rushcliffe)

Malins, Humfrey

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Maples, John

Collins, Tim

Mates, Michael

Colvin, Michael

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Cran, James

May, Mrs Theresa

Curry, Rt Hon David

Moss, Malcolm

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Nicholls, Patrick

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Norman, Archie

Day, Stephen

Ottaway, Richard

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Page, Richard

Duncan, Alan

Paice, James

Duncan Smith, Iain

Paterson, Owen

Evans, Nigel

Prior, David

Faber, David

Randall, John

Fallon, Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Flight, Howard

Robathan, Andrew

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fox, Dr Liam

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Fraser, Christopher

Ruffley, David

Gale, Roger

St Aubyn, Nick

Garnier, Edward

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gibb, Nick

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Gill, Christopher

Shepherd, Richard

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

Soames, Nicholas

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Gray, James

Spring, Richard

Green, Damian

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Greenway, John

Steen, Anthony

Grieve, Dominic

Streeter, Gary

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Swayne, Desmond

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Syms, Robert

Hammond, Philip

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hayes, John

Thompson, William

Heald, Oliver

Townend, John

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Tredinnick, David

Horam, John

Trend, Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Tyrie, Andrew

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Viggers, Peter

456

Walter, Robert

Wilshire, David

Wardle, Charles

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Waterson, Nigel

Woodward, Shaun

Wells, Bowen

Yeo, Tim

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Tellers for the Noes:

Wilkinson, John

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. John Whittingdale.

Willetts, David

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill:—

Committee of the whole House
1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee shall be completed in two allotted days.
(2) At the sitting on the first allotted day, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected and

(b) which would insert after '9' at line 13 of page 1 of the Bill words relating to paragraph 40 of Article 2 of the Treaty,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Seven o'clock.
(3) At the sitting on that day proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and

(b)which would insert at the end of line 13 of page 1 of the Bill words relating to Article 2(3)(b) of the Treaty,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Nine o'clock.
(4) At the sitting on the second allotted day, any remaining proceedings on Clauses 1 and 2 shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Six o'clock.
(5) At that sitting, the remaining proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Eight o'clock.

Proceedings on going into Committee
2 When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 66 (Committee of the whole House on bill) shall not apply.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
3 On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
Report and Third Reading
4 The proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed on the second allotted day and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Conclusion of proceedings
5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraphs 1 or 4, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

457

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion before that time; and

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion,

and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Order of proceedings
6. No motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
Dilatory Motions
7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Dilatory Motions

  Interruption of business
  8. The following business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour—
  458

  (a)proceedings under paragraph 5(1);

  (b)proceedings to which paragraph 5(2) or (3) applies;

  (c)proceedings under paragraph 10(1).

  9. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
  (2) If at the sitting on an allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraphs 1 or 4, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Recommittal
  11. No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  12. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day;
  "the Treaty" means the Treaty signed at Amsterdam on 2nd October 1997 amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts.

  STANDING ORDERS (ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT)
  Resolved,
  That Standing Order No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee) be amended in line 9 by leaving out the word 'fifteen' and inserting the word 'sixteen'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

  EU-Israel Association Agreement
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  11.38 pm
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: The trigger for this debate—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady is addressing the House. Will hon. Members please leave quietly?
  Dr. Starkey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The trigger for this debate is the revelation earlier this year that Israel was effectively fiddling the books and attempting to subvert the interim trade agreement with the European Union by passing off as "made in Israel" goods that have been manufactured elsewhere. Under the terms of the agreement, Israel has a quota for goods—including orange juice, which is allowed into the EU at zero tariff—and 70 per cent. of the normal tariff is charged on additional imports beyond the quota.
  It emerged that Brazilian orange juice had been imported into Israel, relabelled as "made in Israel" and exported to the EU at zero tariff. The presumption is that Israel wished to maintain its quota for future use, while choosing to sell its orange juice more profitably elsewhere. Whatever the reason, that is clearly a deliberate defrauding of the EU. It would be helpful if the Minister could estimate the loss to the EU in duties forgone.
  The EU had had suspicions that goods from Israel had been mislabelled and it therefore took a serious view of the latest infringement. Detailed investigations uncovered further abuses. Orange juice from illegal settlements in Gaza had been similarly mislabelled. On 8 November, the EU issued a warning. Part of it says:
  "The specific situation is aggravated by the fact that since the inquiry got under way, various elements have come to light which confirm a lack of effective administrative cooperation, as foreseen in the different preferential agreements signed between the Community and Israel, and in particular certain substantial errors in the application of those same agreements, to the extent that the validity of all preferential certificates issued by Israel, for all products, are put in doubt."
  As a result, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has been carrying out investigations into the true origin of a wide range of Israeli exports to the United Kingdom-including, for example, textile waste and telecommunications equipment.
  Interestingly, today I have received an answer from the Treasury showing that further inquiries by Customs and Excise
  "relating to a range of manufactured goods have been suspended following undertakings given by Israel at a meeting with EC officials on 28 November".
  I should like the Minister to clarify what those undertakings can possibly be, given Israel's misleading behaviour until now.
  In previous discussions in the House on the interim trade agreement with Israel, hon. Members have repeatedly raised concerns about similar false origination certificates relating to Israeli products—in particular, goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories
  460
  being passed off as Israeli goods. In 1989, the then Foreign Office Minister reassured my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), now Secretary of State for International Development, that there were no arrangements for produce originating from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to enjoy preferential access to the British market.
  In the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, which examined the interim agreement in February 1997, the former Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) restated their concern about false description and again were reassured by the Minister. It is now clear that those suspicions were justified and that the reassurances have not been borne out.
  On 28 November, in response to the latest dispute between the EU and Israel, the Israeli trade and industry minister, Natan Sharansky, admitted in the Israeli press that there had been past transgressions, but attempted in effect to buy off the EU by allowing it additional checks within Israel. That is the clearest possible evidence that the Israelis are playing fast and loose with the EU.
  Perhaps I may digress slightly, as we need to understand the EU's purpose in negotiating association agreements. The association agreement with Israel is one of a series of Euro-Med agreements intended to strengthen economic links with the region. There is a similar agreement with the Palestinian National Authority. The interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters deals essentially with the trade provisions of a full association agreement, pending full ratification of that full agreement.
  Access to European Union markets is a privilege given in return for Israel and the Palestinian National Authority participating positively in the middle east peace process. Again, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made that clear in February 1997 when he said:
  "Support for the middle east peace process is the cornerstone of United Kingdom and European Union policy in the region … Liberalisation of trade will contribute to prosperity and thus to regional stability … The EU's agreement with Israel and the PLO will help to increase prosperity in the region."—[Official Report, Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 19 February 1997; c. 4.]
  In recognition of the linkage of trade preferences to progress in the middle east peace process, two specific articles—1 and 38—were included in the interim association. Article 1 obligates Israel and the European Union to respect human rights and democratic principles. Article 38 obliges Israel to refrain from representing products of its illegal settlements in the occupied territories as originating in Israel or, indeed, certifying Palestinian products exported by Israeli firms as products of Israel.
  There have been numerous examples of breaches of article 1, which deals with human rights and democratic principles. There have been collective punishments of the Palestinian population in response to individual acts by Palestinians. There have been repeated land confiscations, denial of access to Jerusalem for most Palestinians, and a system of internal controls for Palestinians akin to the pass controls of apartheid in South Africa. Some people's Jerusalem ID has been cancelled so that they can no longer live in Jerusalem.

  461
  It is now clear that article 38 has also been regularly breached. In effect, Israel is pretending to participate in the peace process. It is blocking progress and failing to implement agreements already made, but it is preventing the outright collapse of discussions. At the same time, it is continuing to build illegal settlements in the occupied territories, often based on export-oriented agricultural enterprises, and using those settlements to cement its territorial expansion.
  The other half of Israeli policy is to choke the growth of the nascent Palestinian economy through internal and external closures. Since the Oslo accords, there have effectively been closures on one day out of three. These closures are paralysing Palestinian trade and have led to the direct loss of at least 100,000 jobs. The United Nations special co-ordinator's office for the occupied territories has estimated that real wage levels in the area controlled by the Palestinian National Authority fell by about 20 per cent. in 1996 and that the real per capita gross national product had fallen by 38.8 per cent. since 1992.
  When I was in the middle east in the summer, I saw and heard for myself the effect of that policy. In Gaza, for instance, tomatoes produced there were rotting during the closures because they could not be exported to the rest of the Palestinian National Authority controlled area. Meanwhile, people living in Ramallah were being forced to pay 70 times more than market rates to get hold of tomatoes.
  In addition, the Israelis were operating punitive controls on goods from Gaza to Egypt on spurious security grounds. I say "spurious" because the goods were not transiting through Israel but were going direct from Gaza to Egypt. There were reports of boxes of carnations being pierced with check rods, supposedly to check whether there were weapons inside. Of course, that damaged the carnations and made them wholly unsaleable. While such punitive controls are operating, Palestinian goods supplied to Israeli marketing firms are strangely exempted from such treatment.
  The economic agreement that the European Union has made with Israel, which should be bolstering peace, is undercutting it. By providing markets for products from illegal settlements, we and the rest of the European Union are positively encouraging the development and sustaining of those settlements—settlements that are sabotaging the peace process not only for the present Israeli Government but for future Israeli Governments. The Israelis are being allowed to enjoy the economic dividend without making any progress on peace. The current Israeli Government have retreated on progress, and the Palestinians are paying—in unemployment, in business bankruptcies and in land confiscations.
  The further irony is that the European Union taxpayer is also paying the price, because donor aid from the European Union, which should be supporting economic development in the Palestinian National Authority area, is paying to offset the economic damage of the Israeli blockade on the Palestinian economy.
  The Israelis' response to being found out defrauding the European Union has been to bluster and challenge the definition of the geographical area to which the agreement applies. On 10 December 1997, Ha'aretz said:
  "Israel's representative to the European Union in Brussels, Ephraim Halevy, emphasised that … the subject of territoriality with respect to the rules of origin is a political question and that
  462
  Israel strongly objects to its inclusion in its discussions with the Union, 'because it's not the European Union who is going to determine the borders of Israel as an incidental by-product of economic discussions."'
  We must say that that is not acceptable. The European Union has made it clear throughout that the agreement applies only to the internationally recognised borders of Israel.
  The UK position was reiterated, in March 1997, by Jeremy Hanley, then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in a letter to the former Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale. He wrote:
  "The British Government's position on Jerusalem is well known, and is shared by all our EU partners … we do not recognise Israeli (de jure) sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. It follows that goods produced in Jerusalem are not the produce of Israel … A similar logic would apply to goods produced in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories".
  The European Union simply cannot allow Israel unilaterally to reinterpret the terms of an agreement with the European Union. Moreover, that agreement is a privilege, not a right, and gives an advantage to Israel in return for co-operation in the peace process—a process which Israel seems to have no intention of delivering. If the European taxpayer is not to continue to be taken for a ride, the British Government and the European Union will have to take a firm stand.
  The agreement has not yet been ratified, and I should be grateful if the Minister will indicate when it is due to be ratified. I very much hope that he will make it clear that the EU-Israel association agreement cannot be finally approved by the Council of Ministers until cast-iron guarantees are given that Israel will comply with the European Union's interpretation of article 38 and with the definition of what constitutes the state of Israel.
  The European Union has to spell out the fact that international law—not the force of conquest—decides what is occupied and what is not, and that Israel must comply with international law and provide absolutely watertight guarantees that only goods made within the internationally agreed borders of Israel will be able to enjoy the privileges that the European Union is prepared to give.
  11.53 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on raising these issues, and on the way in which she presented her case. Although the House's attendance is somewhat limited at this late hour, I have no doubt that every hon. Member in the Chamber has been impressed with the way in which she has expressed and dealt with some extremely detailed and important issues. I therefore congratulate her doubly on her speech.
  I shall make a few opening comments about the nature of the association agreement and the processes that relate to my hon. Friend's final point. I shall then attempt to deal with some of the technical issues relating to countries of origin before moving onto the peace process and Britain's presidency of the European Union. I hope to do all that in the few minutes that I have to speak.
  The EU-Israel association agreement was signed in November 1995. It was ratified by Israel and most EU member states early in the process. The United

  463
  Kingdom completed its ratification on 8 April this year, after the debate in Committee on 19 February to which my hon. Friend referred.
  My hon. Friend was absolutely right to draw attention to one extremely important point: the reason why virtually all right hon. and hon. Members considered it sensible for the United Kingdom to ratify the agreement was that there had been progress in relation to Hebron. As a result, all parties were agreed that the House should give the association agreement a fair wind. My hon. Friend was right to say that, at the time, our attitude to ratification was coloured by our attitude to the progress in the middle east peace process.
  My hon. Friend may be interested to know that two EU member states—France and Belgium—have not completed their domestic processes of ratification. We expect both countries to have done so in the first half of 1998, although the procedures relate to parliamentary processes in those countries. It is possible that the processes will not have been completed during the United Kingdom presidency, but that depends on the two countries concerned.
  My hon. Friend then asked about the attitude of the Council of Ministers to the association agreement and its final ratification. Progress on the middle east peace process would certainly help discussions in the Council of Ministers. It would greatly improve the atmosphere and prove beneficial to Israel.
  It may be useful if, before turning to the technical issues, I set out the Government's views on where we are on the peace process, and how we would like it to progress. My hon. Friend is right to say that, post-Oslo, the Palestinians have gained little economic reward from the peace process—indeed, quite the opposite. The figure she quoted in terms of the reduction in living standards for Palestinians may be conservative. Some would suggest that the figure may be as high as 40 per cent.
  I realise that political and economic processes do not work together in a simple causal relationship, but if we are to show that peace works, we also have to show that it produces economic rewards. It is abundantly clear that the Palestinians should have more than their fair share of those rewards, simply because of their circumstances and the differential in incomes in the middle east.
  My hon. Friend was also right to say that the process is currently stalled. We have taken an active role in trying to encourage the restart of the process. Earlier this year, we were concerned when it appeared that the peace process was no longer engaged, and there was no prospect of progress. We have encouraged the United States to become actively involved and we very much welcome the steps that Secretary of State Albright has taken to try to bring the parties together and get the process going.
  It is always worth reminding ourselves that the peace process is the only show in town—the only way in which we shall make progress, and the only way in which Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region will have the opportunity to live together in peace, security and justice. The peace process is important to us all, regardless of the way in which we approach the issues, and from whatever standpoint we come.
  We have been pressing the Israeli Government to ensure that the offer on the table will re-create some confidence in the peace process. We have suggested the
  464
  need for progress and action in the following areas. We believe that there is a need for what Secretary of State Albright has called "time out", and that no action should be taken that determines or predetermines the final status negotiations.
  Our view on settlements comes into that process. We are clear that the settlements are illegal, and are an attempt to pre-empt final status negotiations. We have also said that there should be further substantial redeployment. The figures will be subject to negotiation, but the redeployment must be real, qualitative and quantitative. It has to ensure that it rebuilds confidence in the process.
  We also believe that there need to be further confidence-building measures, and we have constantly drawn attention to the need to make progress on the proposals for the airport and the port—both of which will feed strongly into the economic issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West referred. We also believe that there is a need to ensure free and safe passage so that the situations that my hon. Friend described do not happen and the peace process and the political and economic issues are not undermined. We have made it clear to the Israeli Government that there should not be action that squeezes the Palestinians and their civic society out of Jerusalem, because that would also pre-empt the final status negotiations.
  We have made that position clear. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister delivered that message to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and it has been delivered by other European Union leaders. We hope to see progress in the current round of negotiations.
  As I am sure some of my hon. Friends will know, President Arafat is in London tomorrow. We hope that he will be engaging in a successful negotiation through Secretary of State Albright, and that we will be able to make the progress to which I referred. It is important—we recognise this—that, in the context of the peace process, there is a commitment to security on both sides. We need peace; we need security. Both sides have obligations. We are stressing the need for those obligations to be carried out.
  The United Kingdom will assume the European Union presidency within two weeks. We are determined to be active in that presidency in our role in the middle east. We feel that we can play an important part by ensuring that the European voice is heard and that our aspirations and concerns are expressed in the peace process.
  We are also determined to act as complementary support and help to the United States in the peace process, because—I repeat the point that I made earlier—we all have a reason to ensure that the process is successful. Over the next six months of our presidency, we are determined to play an active and constructive role. Hopefully, we can move on some of the peace-related issues, so that we can move towards the justice with peace and security to which my hon. Friend referred.
  I should like to take this opportunity to deal with some of the more detailed issues to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. She talked about the question of orange juice and Israel's breach of country-of-origin rules. I reassure her that the Council of Ministers is very aware of the issue, very concerned about it, and wants appropriate action to be taken. It is clearly unacceptable that Israel—or any country—is in breach of an agreement with the European Union.

  465
  It is clear from the available evidence that there has been a breach, and that action needs to be taken. The Commission is following up the matter with Israel, and we hope that they will reach a proper solution in the near future. That solution must be a recognition that "country of origin" means exactly that, and that the rules are clear and cannot be bent. The rules must be honoured, because they are part of an agreement between Israel and the European Union.
  My hon. Friend also asked whether it was possible for Israel to redefine its borders under international law, as part of the EU association agreement. I hope that I made the point earlier that our position on that is clear—indeed, it was shared by the previous Government—and we regard the settlements as illegal.
  The final boundaries and the final status issues have to be negotiated between the parties, but we do not recognise the settlements under international law, and we have said so on many occasions. The trade association agreement cannot redefine Israel's boundaries, and all the issues must be resolved through the final status negotiations. The position is clear under international law, to us and to other countries, and we will continue to restate our position on the settlements as part of the overall process.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of human rights as part of the broader association agreement. Whenever I visit any country in the middle east, or in any other part of the world, I take the opportunity to raise human rights issues. Human rights are universal: they are not a la carte, and we cannot choose which countries we want to enforce human rights. We must consider each and every country in relation to a universal respect for human
  466
  rights. That is true for Israel, for the Palestine National Authority and for other countries. I can give my hon. Friend the clear reassurance that we will continue to raise human rights issues on every visit to the region.
  My hon. Friend rightly raised specific issues, but the important issue for us all is to make progress in the middle east peace process. I do not believe that any hon. Member, from either side of the House, wishes to see the process stalled, because, if that happens, the risks are obvious and substantial. We all know that we face a difficult and delicate situation. My plea to all those involved is to make progress, through any necessary concessions, and to recognise the needs of all the parties directly involved in the negotiation. No one can seek to stop the world, get off and freeze the process, because that will not work.
  We need to negotiate on the basis that the way to bring a lasting peace to the middle east is to recognise the genuine needs of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. If we can do that, the prize is substantial. It is a sad reflection that a region so rich in people and natural resources, and with a culture that is so diverse and yet so important to the history of the world, under-performs both economically and politically.
  If we can get the peace right, the middle east can move forward. If we can play a part in that process in the next six months, during our presidency of the European Union, we will make a real. and lasting contribution. We all wish to make progress, and to see peace, justice and security in that region.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Marriage
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department is undertaking into marriage.[20141]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Department has commissioned two research projects on marriage which began in April 1997. The first, which looks at individuals' views of marriage over two generations, is being undertaken by Professor Jane Lewis of All Souls College, Oxford and will be completed in March 1999. The second, by One plus One, is the preparation of a series of review papers on the causes, and ways of preventing, marital breakdown. This is due to be completed in March 1998.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria will be applied in(a) assessing the success and value for money of the 13 projects being financed in 1997–98 in support of marriage and (b) determining whether to renew funding for 1998–99 and beyond for each project.[20142]

  Mr. Hoon
  The aims of the programme are (i) to identify the types of service which support marriage most effectively; (ii) to increase public awareness of marriage support services; and (iii) to improve access to existing services. The Department will assess the effectiveness of each project in terms of the achievement of its specific aims and objectives and its cost effectiveness.

  Whether or not the Department decides to continue funding any of the projects will depend on the results of evaluation and the availability of further resources.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many justices of the peace there are in(a) England and (b) Wales.[20303]

  Mr. Hoon
  As at 1 January 1997, the number of Justices of the Peace in England and Wales was as follows:

  (a) England: 28,324

  (b) Wales: 2,050.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish his analysis of means testing to determine eligibility for legal aid in the Youth Court when the analysis is completed.[20293]

  Mr. Hoon
  I will place a summary of the findings of the analysis and of the conclusions in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the appointments to the Committee on Standards in Public Life.[21802]

  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to announce four new appointments to the Committee on Standards in Public Life: Sir Anthony Cleaver, Lord Goodhart, Mrs. Frances Heaton and the right hon. John MacGregor. I have consulted the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) before making those appointments.

  The following existing members of the Committee have been reappointed for a second term: Sir Clifford Boulton, Professor Anthony King, the right hon. The Lord Shore of Stepney, Sir William Utting and Ms Diana Warwick.

  I should like to take this opportunity to thank Lord Nolan and those members of the Committee who are leaving after serving their three-year term: Sir Martin Jacomb; the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King); the right hon. The Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Dame Anne Warburton. I am grateful for the valuable work they and other members of the Committee have undertaken over the last three years. The Government intend to build on the excellent work they started, with the help of Lord Neill and the new Committee.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  "Getting to Grips with Crime"
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses to "Getting to Grips with Crime: A New Framework for Local Action" were received during the consultation period; and if he will make a statement.[21557]

  Mr. Straw
  Some 545 responses were received, most of them warmly supportive of the Government's proposals. A summary of the main points raised can be found in the Library.

  Community Safety Orders
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses to the consultation paper "Community Safety Orders" were received during the consultation period; and if he will make a statement.[21488]

  Mr. Straw
  Some 185 responses were received. A list of the respondents and a summary of the main points raised can be found in the Library in a document entitled "Responses to the Home Office Consultation Document on Community Safety Orders".

  Departmental Recruitment
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information on recruitment his Department is required to publish; and if he will make this information available for the Home Office for 1996.[21619]
  169
  Mr. Straw
  The Civil Service Order in Council 1995 authorises the Civil Service Commissioners to require Departments and agencies to publish summary information about their recruitment and the use of permitted exceptions to the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit.

  The number of staff recruited to the central Home Office, including outstations, during 1996 is shown in the following tables. There were two permitted exceptions to fair and open competition and selection on merit in 1996 and this information was published in the Home Office Annual Report 1997.

  Central Home Office (including the Immigration and Nationality Department)

  Number of appointments

  Number of women appointed

  Number appointed from ethnic minorities

  Number of disabled staff appointed

  Senior Civil Service1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Non-industrial grades

  388

  211

  68

  14

  Industrial grades

  3

  1

  2—

  0

  1All recruitment to the Senior Civil Service throughout the Home Office is carried out by the Central Personnel Management Unit.

  2Below five.

  Prison Service1

  Number of appointments

  Number of women appointed

  Number appointed from ethnic minorities

  Number of disabled staff appointed

  Non-industrial grades

  2,246

  915

  94

  7

  Industrial grades

  191

  38

  2—

  1

  2 As the Prison Service is in the process of transferring over to a new computerised personnel system, there may be inacccuracies in the information provided.

  2 Below 5.

  Passport Agency

  Number of appointments

  Number of women appointed

  Number appointed from ethnic minorities

  Number of disabled staff appointed

  Non-industrial grades

  297

  209

  15

  0

  Industrial grades

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fire Service College

  Number of appointments

  Number of women appointed

  Number appointed from ethnic minorities

  Number of disabled staff appointed

  Non-industrial grades

  32

  22

  0

  1

  Industrial grades

  1

  0

  0

  0

  170

  Forensic Science Service recruitment

  Number of appointments

  Number of women appointed

  Number appointed from ethnic minorities

  Number of disabled staff appointed

  Non-industrial grades

  186

  103

  29

  3

  Industrial grades

  0

  0

  0

  0

  "In Excelsis"
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors underlie his Department's retention of the manuscript of "In Excelsis" containing writings by Lord Alfred Douglas.[21334]

  Mr. Straw
  The manuscript of the poem "In Excelsis" is contained in a notebook which was issued by the Governor of Wormwood Scrubs prison to Lord Alfred Douglas while he was in custody there in 1924. The notebook was then, and is now, owned by the Crown. It has not been retained by my Department, but is held at the Public Record Office at Kew, where it is open for public inspection.

  EU Convention (Criminal Matters)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure there is parliamentary scrutiny of proposals in respect of the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.[21335]

  Mr. Michael
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), deposited the draft convention for scrutiny on 24 July and made a revised text available on 1 December. She will today give oral evidence about the draft convention to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities (Sub-Committee E).

  Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the nationalities of the people at present being held in the Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre;[20590]

  (2) if he will list the periods of time that the people at present detained at the Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre have been held in detention either at this establishment or at other establishments while their cases are being considered;[20591]

  (3) how many people were detained at the Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre on 1 December.[20589]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A total of 91 persons were detained at Harmondsworth immigration detention centre as at 1 December 1997.

  Information on the duration of current continuous detention, solely under Immigration Act powers, of those persons detained at Harmondsworth immigration detention centre as at 10 December 1997, the latest available date, is given in table 1. Reliable information

  171
  about previous periods of detention, if any, of those persons can be obtained only through examination of individual case records at disproportionate cost.

  The nationalities of those persons detained at Harmondsworth immigration detention centre as at 10 December 1997, the latest available date, are given in table 2.

  Table 1: Length of continuous detention, solely under Immigration Act powers, of persons detained at Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre as at 10 December 19971

  Length of current detention

  Number of detainees

  0–1 month

  44

  1–2 months

  17

  2–6 months

  20

  6–12 months

  10

  Total

  91

  1 Figures represent continuous detention, solely under Immigration Act powers, and may include detention at other locations prior to 10 December 1997.

  Table 2: Nationalities of persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers at Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre as at 10 December 1997

  Nationalities

  Number of detainees

  Algeria

  5

  Angola

  2

  Bangladesh

  2

  Bulgaria

  2

  Cyprus

  3

  Czech Republic1

  3

  Democratic Republic of Congo2

  2

  Gambia

  2

  Ghana

  3

  India

  10

  Ivory Coast

  2

  Jamaica

  2

  Lebanon

  2

  Lithuania

  2

  Morocco

  2

  Nigeria

  18

  Pakistan

  7

  Romania

  4

  Turkey

  2

  Nationality doubtful

  3

  Other

  13

  Total

  91

  1 May include persons holding documents issued by the former Czechoslovakia.

  2 Formerly Zaire.

  Rape
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the conviction rate and clear up rate for rape cases expressed as a percentage and in total in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.[205931

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are very concerned about the low proportion of reported rapes that result in a conviction. The Research and Statistics Directorate in the Home Office is undertaking a study to discover what factors influence whether or not a recorded rape leads to a conviction for rape and whether such factors have changed since a similar study of 1985 cases. I am today placing in the Library copies of an interim report on the processing of rape cases in the criminal justice system.172
  The interim report provides some useful information on where reported rape cases drop out before they reach court. We now need to know precisely why so many cases fail to result in a conviction. This will be covered in the final report, which should be available in the second half of next year.

  My right hon. Friend has already announced a number of wide-ranging reforms to make the criminal justice system more swift and effective. In July, he also set up an inter-departmental working group to look at further ways of assisting vulnerable witnesses, including rape victims, which is due to report shortly.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the length of time taken to process applications for British citizenship. [20460]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Working practices and organisation in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are currently being looked at internally in order to improve the service to applicants. Next year, the introduction of the Caseworking Programme in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will produce efficiency savings which will speed up the processing of these applications.

  Misuse of Drugs Act
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conditions would have to be satisfied for a drug classified as Schedule 1 in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to be reclassified as Schedule 2. [20627]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 allow and govern activities in relation to controlled drugs which would otherwise be unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. They divide those drugs into five schedules, with those in Schedule 1 being subject to the most stringent controls.

  The drugs in Schedule 1 are generally acknowledged to have no therapeutic applications and their use is accordingly confined by international convention and domestic law to research and other special purposes.

  Reclassification from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 would depend upon the therapeutic benefits of a medicinal form of the drug being satisfactorily demonstrated in the United Kingdom, or the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs reducing the international controls on the drug.

  Children
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been found not guilty as a result of the operation of the presumption of doli incapax in each year for the last 10 years. [19814]

  Mr. Michael
  This information is not collected centrally. However a not guilty outcome as a result of the presumption of doli incapax is neither in the interests of the child or children concerned nor in the interests of the public. It is clearly important that the court is not prevented from dealing with the youngster when there is no doubt about the facts of the case.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Concessionary Fuel
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements she has made to ensure the continued supply of concessionary fuel to ex-employees of British Coal. [21817]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department took over liability to supply concessionary fuel to ex-employees of British Coal in March 1995. Contracts were placed then with two companies to supply and deliver concessionary fuel over the period from March 1995 up to March 1998.

  Following a competitive tender, two-year contracts have recently been awarded to T. H. Fergusson Ltd. in Scotland and Coal Products Distribution Ltd. in England and Wales, to take effect from 30 March 1998. Both companies already supply and deliver solid fuel to other domestic customers.

  All fuel supplied will continue to be of high quality and approved for use by HETAS, the solid fuel industry's Heating and Testing Approvals Scheme.

  My Department's agents, the National Concessionary Fuel Office (NCFO), will continue to administer the concessionary fuel service, handling all inquiries and claims about entitlements from the beneficiaries.

  Because European law on public procurement requires one manufacturer not to be favoured over another, and because fuel prices have changed in relation to each other and the mix of fuels bid into the tender is different from the last tender, it will be necessary to revise the entitlement levels for some brands of manufactured smokeless fuels to ensure that cost of supplying fuel to each beneficiary is equivalent. Higher prices for some brands means this rebalancing will reduce annual entitlements from present levels for those beneficiaries who receive those brands. However, all beneficiaries will have the opportunity either to remain with those brands or to switch to broadly equivalent fuels which will generally provide the same or higher entitlements. Anyone switching to a cheaper brand will receive more than they receive at present.

  No-one need change from the fuel they receive now. No-one will be made to change, everyone will be able to make their own decision. Fuller details are being provided to the mining unions this month and to the recipients of concessionary fuel early in the New Year so that they can make their wishes known and stocks can be ordered.

  Laser Pens
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she will take to ensure that class 1 and 2 laser pens are not sold to children under the age of 18 years. [20487]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: The Consumer Protection Act 1987 contains a power to make regulations prohibiting the supply of goods to particular classes of people; for example to children under the age of 18 if the goods would be unsafe in the hands of those people. However, to do this we would require clear evidence that there was a safety problem arising from the sale of Class 1 or Class 2 laser pointers
  174
  to children under 18 years. To date there is no such evidence since all incidents appear to involve Class 3 lasers and above.

  On 28 October I acted swiftly in urging Trading Standards Departments to remove from general sale all Class 3 and Class 4 laser pointers as specified under BS EN 60825-Part 1: 1994 (Safety of laser products), because these pointers present an unacceptable risk to consumers. I have been advised by the National Radiological Protection Board that there is no evidence that laser pointers in Class 1 or Class 2 of the BS EN standard can cause a direct risk to health.

  Space Programme
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will examine the case for supporting the heat exchanger recently invented by Bristol University within the Government's space programme. [21128]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: Innovative research into heat exchangers has been underway at the University of Bristol in recent years and is known to my officials at the British National Space Centre. I am advised that there is a possible application of this research in the field of space transportation.

  I can confirm that BNSC will consider the merits of this research as part of an ongoing reappraisal of the prospects for our satellite industry to retain cost effective access to space.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the advantages and disadvantages of exempting disabled people from her minimum wage legislation. [20901]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The National Minimum Wage Bill does not treat disabled people differently from the able bodied.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what impact the proposed changes to corporation tax will have on forecast net returns on capital in each of the next four years. [20879]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: Overall, the changes will have little impact on companies' post tax profits, which are of course computed on an accruals basis rather than by reference to cash flow. No company will pay more corporation tax in total as a result of the changes, and from 1999 companies will be free to take a whole range of business decisions without having to worry about ACT and, more particularly, surplus ACT.

  Research Expenses (Blind Trust)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the trustees of her blind trust for research expenses; and if she will publish its trust deed. [20892]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The structure of the blind trust which is used to pay the salary of a member of staff in my parliamentary office was discussed in advance with the relevant House of Commons authorities, who confirmed that it was in full

  175
  conformity with the rules. I have declared in the register of member's interests the information required about the trust and I have nothing further to add.

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is government policy to accept the conclusions of the Low Pay Commission in full when it reports. [20902]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The Government will give due weight and consideration to any recommendations which the Low Pay Commission makes on those matters referred to it. If, on making the first regulations, the Government decide to act in a different manner from the recommendations of the Commission a report shall be laid before both Houses containing a statement of the reasons for the decision.

  Gas-powered Electricity Plants
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance the Government have issued to companies wishing to build new gas-powered electricity plants. [20899]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: Applicants are referred to Planning Circular 14/90 which provides advice to local planning authorities on the section 36 procedure.

  Industrial Tribunal Decisions
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the number of industrial tribunal decisions which are fully complied with within a period of two months from the tribunal decision. [21174]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department does not generally collect data on the payment of awards. However, the most recent survey of Industrial Tribunal Applications (the 1992 Survey of Industrial Tribunal Applications, Employment Department Research Series No. 22) reported that the median time for payment of awards as a lump sum was 7 to 14 days after the hearing. Once an award is made, the payment is a matter for the parties and it can be enforced through the civil courts in the normal manner. To help ensure prompt payment, awards which are paid late attract interest.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what mechanisms are available to ensure the enforcement of industrial tribunal decisions. [21175]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Industrial tribunal awards of money are enforced through the normal mechanisms of the civil courts. In Scotland they are enforced in the same manner as extract decrees arbitral. This means that if payment is not made the creditor may proceed to diligence without requiring to refer to the civil courts for a decree. Diligence is effected in the normal manner for civil debts. To help ensure prompt payment, awards which are paid late will attract interest.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to introduce procedures to allow for easier enforcement of industrial tribunal decisions; and if she will make a statement. [21176]
  176
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have no plans to change the procedures for the enforcement of industrial tribunal decisions. Monetary awards are enforced in a similar way to other awards made by the civil courts.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  St. Margaret's School, Carlton
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will decide whether St. Margaret's School, Carlton, Bedfordshire should be closed. [20571]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce his decision shortly.

  University Admissions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will take steps to encourage universities to publish data on the percentage of state school applications and admissions; [20516]

  (2) how many, and which, universities currently publish data relating to the percentage of state school applications and admissions; [20517]

  (3) how many, and which, universities currently publish data relating to the percentage of (a) applications and (b) admissions of candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds. [20518]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend welcomes the various Dearing Report recommendations on widening participation and has asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England to give priority in funding additional places to those institutions which can demonstrate a commitment to widening participation. We shall be monitoring the composition of applicants and new entrants to higher education as a whole. It is, however, for individual universities and colleges to determine whether or not to publish data on the characteristics of applicants and new entrants to their own institution. The Department does not keep a record of which universities do or do not publish such information, but we know that the universities of Oxford and Cambridge publish annually an analysis of applications and accepted applicants which includes details of the candidates' previous schooling. The Universities and College Admissions Service (UCAS) routinely provide each higher education establishment with detailed analyses of their applicants and accepted applicants through the bi-annual Management Statistics and the institutional datasets. Ethnicity data are available by institution within the Higher Education Management Statistics, available from the Higher Education Statistics Agency. With the authorisation of the institutions involved, UCAS can provide demographic details of applicants and accepted applicants to each institution.

  Key Stage 3
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of scripts have been remarked in each local education authority for
  177
  all key stage 3 tests undertaken in (a) English, (b) maths and (c) science; and in what percentage of scripts the (i) scores and (ii) final levels changed. [20671]

  Mr. Byers
  This information is collected on a national basis only in terms of the number of pupils in the review process and the number of those receiving changes to their test levels. The data are as follows:

  Percentage of pupils reviewed

  Percentage of levels changed

  English

  7

  2

  Mathematics

  0.02

  0.001

  Science

  0.07

  0.005

  Young Workers (EU)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the incidence of young people from other EU countries taking up paid work for which there are British young people available. [20701]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have received no such representations. The EU Single Market enables movement of workers of all ages in both directions.

  University Grants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current level of grant to(a) Brunel university, (b) City university, (c) Birmingham university and (d) Coventry university.[20889]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is set out in the following table.

  Institution

  Funding Council Grant academic year 1997–98 £ million

  Brunel university

  28

  City university

  18

  Birmingham university

  65

  Coventry university

  32

  Disability Rights Task Force
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will appoint a representative of groups with learning disabilities to the Disability Rights Task Force. [21100]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 15 December 1997,Official Report, column 7.

  Workplace Discrimination (HIV and AIDS)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to assist companies to prevent discrimination against persons with HIV or AIDS in the workplace. [20716]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We announced on 1 October a three part strategy to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. This involves the 178
  establishment of a Disability Rights Commission (DRC), a Disability Rights Task Force to undertake a wide review on how to implement such civil rights and the implementation of the remaining rights of access to goods, facilities and services under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA).

  The Task Force met for the first time on 16 December. One of its first jobs in the New Year will be to consider the role and functions of the DRC. We intend to establish a Commission which serves the needs of disabled people and in so doing will work supportively with business.

  The Task Force will also consider a wide range of issues concerning comprehensive civil rights and is likely to wish to consider the position of people with HIV or AIDS in the workplace.

  At the moment, the DDA protects disabled people—including people with AIDS or HIV infection which affects normal day to day activities—against discrimination by employers with 20 or more employees. We are currently reviewing the position of small employers excluded from the DDA. A booklet "What employers need to know" is available to assist employers in relation to their duties under the DDA and there is also a Code of Practice containing practical guidance for employers. We are considering what other information might usefully be made available to employers.

  The Department of Health set up the National Aids Trust (NAT) in 1987, as a fully independent charity. The employers' initiative run by the NAT provides a statement of employment principles for HIV and AIDS and is aimed at assisting employers in the effective management of HIV and AIDS in the workplace, including preventing discrimination against people with HIV and AIDS.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Union Social Affairs Council on 15 December. [21669]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and I represented the UK at the Social Affairs Council on 15 December.

  The Council passed a Resolution adopting the 1998 Employment Guidelines, and committing Member States to produce National Employment Action Plans in time for examination at the Cardiff European Council in June 1998.

  The Council adopted two Directives which apply to the United Kingdom the European Works Council and Parental Leave Directives. It also adopted the Part-time Work Directive, under the procedures set out in the Agreement on Social Policy. A Commission proposal to extend this measure to the UK is expected shortly. There was broad agreement on the extension of working-time controls to sectors excluded from the Working-time Directive. The Council had further discussion on the follow-up to the Davignon report on worker participation under the proposed European Company Statute; and my hon. Friend the Minister of State confirmed that the UK Presidency would aim to make further progress on this dossier under its Presidency.
  179
  The proposal for a programme of analysis and research of Member States' employment policies was agreed, with a budget of 30 mecu over three years.

  There was discussion on the obligations of Member States to bring civil servants in special schemes within the co-ordination mechanism of regulation 1408/71. I confirmed that the UK intended to make progress with this dossier.

  The Council adopted the Directive on the Burden of Proof in Sex Discrimination Cases on the basis of the common position agreed in June of this year. A Commission proposal to extend the directive to the UK will be produced shortly.

  The Council had a wide-ranging discussion about the follow-up to the Peking conference on women, and explored what Member States were doing by way of mainstreaming, positive actions, and combating violence against women.

  The Commission made presentations on the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice in the Marschall case, and on its Action Plan for the Free Movement of Workers.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the total level of aid planned to be paid to Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1998–99(a) directly and (b) via other agencies; and if she will make a statement. [20745]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our provisional plans are to spend £5 million from bilateral aid funds in Bosnia in 1998–99.

  My Department's contributions to multilateral aid agencies for the coming year are not yet confirmed. Allocations are reported after expenditure.

  The expenditure for 1997–98 is expected to be £18.75 million which includes £17 million of emergency aid.

  Treasury Committee Report
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the IMF in respect of the recommendations of the Treasury Committee in its Fourth Report of Session 1996–97 (HC68) that it should establish an independent evaluation unit reporting directly to the Board and publishing its findings. [18352]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply to this question on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is the Governor of the IMF.

  We strongly support an enhanced evaluation function in the IMF and have consistently pressed for an independent evaluation unit. We will continue to do so, but further progress on this is unlikely before the end of next year when the two year trial period for the current limited
  180
  external evaluations will be completed. We are therefore working to ensure that the existing external evaluation system works as effectively as possible, and take an active role in the Executive Directors committee which co-ordinates the process.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism (East Midlands)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to promote tourism in the East Midlands. [20929]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  On 26 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the Government will work with the Tourism Forum to develop a new strategy to maximise the economic and job creation potential of the industry. The strategy will benefit all regions including the East Midlands.

  In addition, the Government assists the industry directly by providing grant-in-aid to support the marketing and development activities of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if his Department has current dealings with(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) suppliers which are not millennium complaint; and on what date his Department will cease to deal with (i) non-governmental organisations and (ii) suppliers which are not millennium compliant. [20534]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is following the guidance set out in the CCTA's Tackling the Year 2000 guides and is in the process of alerting all non-governmental organisations and suppliers with which it does business of the importance of Year 2000 compliance and of the need for all organisations and suppliers of strategic goods and services to be compliant by 31 December 1999.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the annual number of visitors to each of London's royal parks. [20932]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Welch to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 17 December 1997:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the annual number of visitors to London's Royal Parks.

  181
  The most recent figures relate to 1995. They are based on counts carried out during annual visitor surveys in the parks and are therefore approximate.

  Park

  Visitors (millions)

  Regent's Park (including Primrose Hill)

  5

  St. James's Park

  5.5

  Green Park

  3.4

  Hyde Park

  4.7

  Kensington Gardens

  2.5

  Greenwich Park

  3.4

  Bushy Park

  1.6

  Richmond Park

  2.6

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Jonathan Aitken
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General on what date the DPP received a letter from the editor of The Guardian about the alleged perjury of Jonathan Aitken following the collapse of the libel action; on what date she replied; and if he will make a statement. [20383]

  The Attorney-General
  On 20 June 1997, the Director of Public Prosecutions received a letter from the editor of the Guardian. She replied on 23 June 1997, explaining that the Crown Prosecution Service is not an investigative authority. A complaint against Mr. Aitken was later made to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who has appointed a team of officers to investigate the allegations made against Mr. Aitken. That investigation continues. The police, at the conclusion of their inquiries, will forward a report to the Crown Projection Service. This will then be reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Immigration
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how long on average a person applying for entry clearance for settlement, who was interviewed in November 1997, waited for an interview, at each British post in the Indian subcontinent; and how long those applying for settlement in November 1997 may expect to wait before interview, at each British post in the Indian subcontinent; [20689]

  (2) what was the staff complement of the people dealing (a) full time and (b) part time with migration and visa matters at each British post in the Indian subcontinent in (i) December 1995, (ii) June 1996, (iii) December 1996, (iv) June 1997 and (v) December 1997; and how many of these positions were vacant at each date; [20686]

  (3) what has been the average period for which a position in the migration and visa staff at each British post in the Indian subcontinent, has remained vacant after a postholder has left over the last three years. [20687]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In view of the amount of detail needed to answer these questions, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Middle East
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his proposals for the Middle East peach process during the UK presidency of the EU. [21239]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Seeking to re-inject momentum into the Middle East peace process will be a high priority during our Presidency. We are anxious to see existing agreements implemented in full and progress made on other outstanding issues. We will be pursuing EU proposals which complement and support US efforts. These include a code of conduct to guide future negotiations; a mechanism to institutionalise security co-operation and handle crises; facilitating agreement on implementation of commitments under the Interim Agreement, in particular on Gaza air and sea ports and transit arrangements between the West Bank and Gaza; and engaging Israel in a dialogue on ways of removing obstacles to Palestinian economic development.

  Dependent Territories (Caribbean)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contingency plans he has in place for dependent territories in the Caribbean in the eventuality of other volcanic eruptions. [21041]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]All the Caribbean Dependent Territories have an office of disaster preparedness and disaster contingency plans which are regularly reviewed. These plans take account of the hazards posed by flooding and their principal causes: hurricanes or tsunamis set up by submarine volcanic activity, such a san eruption by the volcano Kick 'Em Jenny, located off Grenada.

  Dependent Territories (Internet Services)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Commissioner for Pitcairn has had with businesses seeking to create employment on Pitcairn concerning the provision of Internet services to the island; and for what reasons the Commissioner has been seeking to acquire the domain name for Pitcairn from the designated manager. [21045]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]The Commissioner is currently investigating ways of improving communications with the Pitcairn Islands to permit Internet access. The Commissioner is seeking to acquire the domain name for Pitcairn in response to a request to this effect form the Pitcairn Island Council.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on Internet services for Pitcairn Island and other dependent territories; and if he will make a statement. [21038]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]Existing data communications with the Pitcairn Islands do not permit access to the Intenet. There are therefore no Internet services operating from or within Pitcairn. The Commissioner is currently investigating ways of improving communications so that the Internet can be
  183
  accessed from Pitcairn. Our policy on issues of this sort is to seek to fulfil the wishes of the individual dependent territory governments.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy to seek to regulate or control domain names on the Internet in respect of United Kingdom dependent territories; and if he will make a statement. [21039]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]Our policy is to seek to fulfil the wishes expressed by the individual dependent territory governments. This Department does not generally authorise third parties to administer top level Internet domain names on behalf of dependent territories unless there is some obvious direct benefit to the dependent territories.

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 103, what steps his Department has taken to inform other bodies of its support for the broad intentions relating to each United Nations text; and to what extent he has monitored the implementation of the principles contained in the texts. [20329]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]Our support for the five United Nations texts, and for the principles which they contain, is recorded in the reports of the UN meetings where the texts were adopted. For the convenience of the House, I have arranged for copies of these reports to be placed in the Libraries of the House today. The texts are recommendatory in nature, and are not legally binding on member States. It is for the relevant home Departments to consider the recommendations contained in the texts, and to monitor their implementation as appropriate.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if constitutional change, other than as provided in the Treaty of Utrecht, in the status of Gibraltar is a matter solely for the decision of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Gibraltar. [21044]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]Constitutional change is a matter for the decision of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Gibraltar provided that it is compatible with the Treaty of Utrecht. We also stand by the commitment in the preamble to the 1969 constitution that there can be no change in sovereignty over Gibraltar without the freely and democratically expressed consent of its people.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC Weapons (Losses)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) number and (b) type of RUC issue weapons and of what description have been lost, stolen or otherwise unaccounted for in each of the past 10 years; how many of these weapons are believed to have
  184
  fallen into the hands of (a) Republican and (b) Loyalist paramilitaries; and how many have been recovered subsequently. [19497]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]The information requested for the period 1 January 1988 to 4 December 1997 is set out in the tables. All of the weapons referred to are handguns with the exception of one rifle stolen in 1988 but which was subsequently recovered.

  Year

  Stolen

  Recovered

  Not recovered

  1988

  9

  8

  1

  1989

  13

  11

  2

  1990

  13

  12

  1

  1991

  14

  13

  1

  1992

  3

  3

  0

  1993

  5

  3

  2

  1994

  14

  9

  5

  1995

  6

  2

  4

  1996

  6

  2

  4

  1997

  2

  1

  1

  Total

  85

  64

  21

  Year

  Stolen

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Other1

  1988

  9

  3

  3

  3

  1989

  13

  1

  4

  8

  1990

  13

  3

  1

  9

  1991

  14

  3

  2

  9

  1992

  3

  1

  0

  2

  1993

  5

  2

  0

  3

  1994

  14

  2

  0

  12

  1995

  6

  0

  0

  6

  1996

  6

  0

  0

  6

  1997

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  85

  15

  10

  60

  1 Other—Non-Terrorist/Criminal/Not Known.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 21 November 1997,Official Report, column 321, on how many occasions and at what cost RUC officers travelled to Germany in November and December 1996 for training purposes and how many of them were (i) training German officers, (ii) being trained by German officers and (iii) participating in events involving more than the two forces. [19498]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]During November and December 1996 RUC officers travelled to Germany on 9 occasions for training purposes with the Army. Military transport was used at no cost to the RUC.

  No training took place with German officers.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the answer of 21 November 1997,Official Report, column 321, what was the total cost in November and December 1996 of foreign travel for RUC officers on operational duties. [19499]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]The total cost of foreign travel for RUC officers on operational duties in November and December 1996 was £35,604.20.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if her Department has current dealings with(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) suppliers which are not millennium compliant; and on what date her Department will cease to deal with (i) non-governmental organisations and (ii) suppliers which are not millennium compliant. [20521]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]My Departments are very aware of the importance of being Millennium compliant. They have taken steps to ensure compliance for the year 2000 by including an appropriate clause in contract documentation for the supply of goods and services. It is difficult to assess at this point in time how many suppliers are not Millennium compliant. However every effort is being made by my officials to encourage companies to become compliant through awareness seminars and liaising with organisations such as industry lead bodies and the CBI.

  I have not specified a date when my Departments will cease to deal with non-governmental organisations and suppliers which are not Millennium compliant as the legalities of doing so are as yet unclear.

  Euro
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the impact on Northern Ireland of the adoption of the euro by the Republic of Ireland. [20772]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]Northern Ireland's interests, as part of the United Kingdom, are best served by this Government's policy that the United Kingdom will enter EMU only if the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous and if the people agree in a referendum. Great Britain continues to be Northern Ireland's main export market. The impact on Northern Ireland of the Republic of Ireland entering EMU earlier than the United Kingdom would depend, among other things, on the stability of the sterling/euro exchange rate and the flexibility of local labour markets.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Northern Ireland Museums Council was consulted on the preparation of the draft Museums and Galleries (NI) Order 1997. [21133]

  Mr. Worthington
  Yes.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what costs have been incurred in advertising for personnel for the Museums Institution for Northern Ireland prior to its being given parliamentary approval. [21131]

  Mr. Worthington
  No costs have been incurred in respect of personnel solely relating to the new institution. A director has been sought to fill the current vacancies at the Ulster Museum and Ulster Folk and Transport Museum with the intention that this person would in due course become the director of the new institution. Advertisements relating to this appointment have been run on two occasions and cost £26,410 in total.
  186
  Advertisements to seek trustees for the Northern Ireland Museums Council and the new body have cost £3,760.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the individuals and organisations that commented on the draft Museums and Galleries (NI) Order 1997. [21136]

  Mr. Worthington
  The organisations and individuals who commented were as follows:

  Museums

  Ulster Museum (Board of Trustees)

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum (Board of Trustees) plus two
  individual members of staff

  Ulster-American Folk Park (Board of Trustees)

  Museums related

  Northern Ireland Museums' Council

  Museums' Association

  Irish Museums' Association

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  Irish Professional Conservators' and Restorers' Association

  Down County Museum

  District Councils

  Ards Borough Council

  Armagh City and District Council.

  Ballymoney City Council

  Belfast City Council

  Craigavon Borough Council

  Derry City Council

  Down District Council

  Magherafelt District Council

  Newtownabbey Borough Council

  Strabane District Council

  Government

  Virginia Bottomley MP

  Department of Economic Development

  Department of the Environment

  Northern Ireland Audit Office

  Michael D. Higgins TD

  Other bodies>

  SDLP

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  Ministry of Defence

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Community Relations Council

  Ulster Historical Foundation

  NIPSA (Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance)

  William Thompson MP

  Individuals

  D. R. M. Weatherup

  Sir Phillip Foreman

  Clive Priestly

  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the advice of the Museums and Galleries Commission was sought(a) before preparation of the draft Museums and Galleries (NI) Order 1997,

  187
  (b) during the consultation stage on the draft Order and (c) following the representations received on the draft Order. [21130]

  Mr. Worthington
  The advice of the Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC) was sought before the preparation of the draft Museums and Galleries (NI) Order 1997 and during the consultation stage. After this, further consideration was restricted to the Museums Merger Steering Group which includes representatives of the three museums involved in the merger together with independent representatives one of whom is the NI Commissioner for MGC.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what fluoride compounds are added to public water supplies in Tandragee and Bangor; in what concentration; and by whom they are supplied. [20063]

  Mr. Worthington
  The fluoride content of the water supply is increased only in water supplied to Tandragee and Holywood. The water supplied to Bangor is not subject to fluoridation. The compound of fluorine used to increase the fluoride content of the water supply is hexafluorosilicic acid.

  The fluoridation of water is subject to the provisions of the Water (Fluoridation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. Under the provisions of that Order the concentration of fluoride is, so far as is reasonably practicable, required to be maintained at one milligram per litre.

  Hexafluorosilicic acid is purchased from a supplier selected by annual tender.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the risks to health arising from fluoridation of water supplies. [20065]

  Mr. Worthington
  The overwhelming scientific evidence has concluded that fluoridation of water supplies at one part per million parts of water is entirely safe. The water service monitors the supply to ensure that the concentration is maintained at this level.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to(a) extend and (b) cease the fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland. [20067]

  Mr. Worthington
  There are presently no plans to extend or cease the fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) households and (b) residents receive fluoridated public water supplies in (i) Tandragee and (ii) Bangor.[20069]

  Mr. Worthington
  The estimated number of households and residents in Tandragee and Holywood normally receiving water supplies with an increased fluoride levels is as follows:

  Number

  Tandragee

  Households receiving water supplies with an increased fluoride content

  1,000

  Residents receiving water supplies with increased fluoride content

  3,000

  188

  Number

  Holywood

  Household receiving water supplies with an increased fluoride content

  1,400

  Residents receiving water supplies with increased fluoride content

  3,100

  The water supplied to Bangor is not subject to fluoridation.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representation she has received in relation to fluoridation at Tandaragee and Bangor. [20064]

  Mr. Worthington
  I have received 15 representations in relation to fluoridation. Five of the representations related to the fluoridation of Tandragee's water supply.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the impact of fluoridation on the(a) dental and (b) general medical health of the population of Tandragee and Bangor. [20066]

  Mr. Worthington
  No assessment of the effects of fluoridation have been carried out in Tandaragee or Holywood because the population supplied with fluoridated water is too small for a valid statistical assessment to be made. However observation by general dental practitioners and community dentists indicate the patients in Tandragee and Holywood supplied with fluoridated water enjoy better dental health than those who do not receive fluoridated water.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what basis Tandragee and Bangor were selected as the location for the fluoridation of public water supplies.[20068]

  Mr. Worthington
  Following encouragement from Government in 1968 Councils responsible for Tandragee and Holywood agreed to introduce fluoridation schemes in these areas.

  The water supplied to Bangor is not subject to fluoridation.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Water Service commenced adding flouride compounds to public water supplies at Tandragee and Bangor; and what public consultation preceded such action. [20070]

  Mr. Worthington
  Fluoridation takes place at the water treatment works serving Tandragee and Holywood. These schemes were both introduced by their respective Councils. The Holywood plant became operational in 1970 followed in 1974 with the opening of the Tandragee plant.

  The water supplied to Bangor is not subject to fluoridation.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the religious and community background of (i) male and (ii) female clerical officers and clerkypists in each office of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.[19575]
  189
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, who has advised me that information about the religious and community background of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's workforce is not published at a level below that of the organisation as a whole. This is published annually in the Fair Employment Commission's Report "A Profile of the Northern Ireland Workforce Summary of the Monitoring Returns". The most recent report for 1996 is available in the Library.

TREASURY

  VAT (NHS Trusts)
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total performance-related pay received by staff in HM Customs and Excise offices responsible for recovering VAT from NHS trusts in each year since 1990. [20000]

  Public body

  Names

  Position

  Whether remunerated

  Private Finance Task Force

  Mr. Adrian Montague

  Chief Executive

  Remunerated

  Financial Services Authority

  Ms Dierdre Hutton

  Directors

  All remunerated

  Mr. Christopher Rodrigues

  Mr. Robert Smith

  Mr. Stephen Thieke

  Mr. Brian Williamson CBE1

  Financial Services Tribunal

  Ms M. E. Black

  Members of Tribunal

  All unremunerated (but fee paid per sitting)

  Mr. R. G. Burnett

  Ms J. Castiau

  Mr. K. W. Emery

  Mr. W. R. Gemmell

  Mr. R. C. H. Jeens

  Miss M. S. Lai

  Mr. R. Leighton

  Mr. I N. Mokhtar

  Mr. N. M. Moore

  Mr. J. Parsloe

  Mr. P. Purewal

  Mr. J. C. Ritchie

  Mr. I. L. Rushton

  Mrs. L. M. Salisbury

  Mr. M. E. Tuke

  Mr. W. D. Walker OBE

  Ms V. Ward

  Mr. P. D. Williams

  Mr. B. R. Wordsworth

  Board of Banking Supervision

  Sir Alan Hardcastle1,2

  Independent Member

  Remunerated

  VAT and Duties Tribunal

  Mr. John Davidson

  Part time lay Members

  All unremunerated (but fee paid per sitting)

  Mr. Alex McLoughlin

  Mrs. Joanna Neill

  National Savings

  Mr. Roy Heape

  Non-executive directors

  Remunerated

  Ms Judy Lowe

  Mr. James Turner

  1Re-appointment.

  2 Joint appointment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England.

  190
  Dawn Primarolo
  All pay awards made to all Customs and Excise staff are performance related. No central record is kept of the staff who carry out VAT assurance work on NHS trusts.

  National Asset Register
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1997,Official Report, columns 359–60, to the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), if Departments and agencies will be able to use receipts generated from asset sales to support investment under PFI schemes. [21656]

  Mr. Darling
  Yes.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the names of all those people whom he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed, and whether they receive remuneration. [19970]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date the Inland Revenue systems will be capable of handling the Euro; and when the Treasury will instruct the Inland Revenue to prepare for sterling joining economic and monetary union. [20317]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue already accept payments in foreign currency and this facility will be extended to the euro. The Inland Revenue, along with other departments, has already started to consider what should be done to prepare for the option of the UK joining the single currency in the next Parliament.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Inland Revenue has made of the impact on its activities of sterling joining economic and monetary union. [20319]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue is reviewing the implications which would arise if the UK were to adopt the single currency.

  Declarations of Origin (Israel)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if Customs and Excise's inquiries into the true origin of products imported from Israel includes(a) dairy products, (b) other agricultural products and (c) manufactured products; and what other products are included; [20348]

  (2) when EC officials will meet Israeli representatives to seek a solution to the problem of false origin declarations. [20350]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise are currently awaiting replies from Israel in relation to inquiries concerning textile waste and telecommunications equipment. Israel has undertaken to verify the originating status of orange juice exported to the Community since June 1995 and to complete these inquiries by 10 March 1998. Further inquiries relating to a range of manufactured goods have been suspended following undertakings given by Israel at a meeting with EC officials on 28 November to resolve the doubts concerning the validity of preferential certificates.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Customs and Excise experts from the Member States of the European Communities will meet to co-ordinate further measures on verifying Israeli; origin declarations. [20349]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Meetings took place on 28 November and 10 December 1997. A further meeting to agree a common policy is scheduled for 12 January 1998.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Customs and Excise will report the results of their inquiries into the true origin of products imported from Israel. [20347]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is normal procedure for Customs to inform importers when inquiries are sent to Israel. As soon as a response is received the importer is advised.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the current priorities of the Green Minister within his Department. [20512]
  192
  Dawn Primarolo
  As the Treasury's Green Minister I am committed to 'greening' the Department's operations, to integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas, and to improving the economic analysis underpinning the Government's environmental initiatives.

  The statement of intent on Environmental Taxation, issued with the July Budget, committed the Government to the delivery of sustainable growth. In line with that statement, we are exploring the scope for using the tax system, where appropriate, to deliver environmental objectives. Key current priorities were indicated in the Pre-Budget Report.

  Student Suicides
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many students have committed suicide in the current academic year. [20890]

  Mrs. Liddell
  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. Keith Vaz, dated 17 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 questions on suicides by students.
  In the period 1 September 1996 to 31 July 1997, there were a total of 114 suicides recorded to persons aged 16 and over in England and Wales who were described as 'students' at the time their deaths were registered. These are the latest figures available which approximate to a completed academic year and include deaths where the underlying cause of death was coded as suicide or undetermined injury.

  EU Banks and Credit Institutions (Supervision)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what competence the Governing Council or Executive Board of the European central bank will have for requiring its component national central banks to apply common criteria or rules for licensing and supervision of their respective national banks and credit institutions; [21225]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1997, Official Report, column 168, if he will make a statement on the treaty responsibilities of the European Central Bank in respect of the licensing and supervision of national banks and credit institutions in the event of UK entry into EMU and its consequent duties in respect of actions of national banks. [21004]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None. Article 105(6) of the Treaty would allow the ECB to carry out specific tasks concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions but only after legislation by the Council, acting unanimously, had conferred these functions on the ECB. No such legislation has been proposed by the Commission. Under Article 105(5) the European System of Central Banks, including ECB itself, will have an obligation to contribute to the smooth conduct of policies pursued by Member States' competent authorities, relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions.

  Export Transactions
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of British export business was conducted in(a) US dollars, (b) German marks, (c) French francs, (d) other EU currencies and (e) other world currencies in each of the last five years.[21200]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 4 November 1997,Official Report, columns 101–02, on 13 November 1997, Official Report, columns 625–26, and on 24 November 1997, Official Report, columns 358–59.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on his review of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997; and when the review will commence; and what procedures it will follow; [19739]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to issue reprocessing certificates under the packaging waste regulations only to those companies which achieve the tonnage of waste in each material for which they have an obligation; and if he will make a statement; [20106]

  (3) what representations he has received from the packaging industry concerning the compatibility of the practice of shared responsibility with free market principles; and if he will make a statement;[20105]

  (4) what representations he has received from those businesses which are involved with the packaging waste regulations which have insufficient packaging waste arising from their businesses to meet their targets; and if he will make a statement. [20104]

  Mr. Meacher
  Increasing the recycling and recovery of waste packaging is an important element of achieving a more sustainable waste strategy. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 are intended broadly to double UK recycling and recovery rates by the year 2001, so that around 50 per cent. of all waste packaging is recovered. These regulations, enacted by the previous Government, are based on an industry agreement reached on 15 December 1995 and, as I have indicated previously, I am keen to ensure that we review their effectiveness and ensure that they fairly reflect that agreement. I accept the importance of an early Review as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Packaging, chaired by Sir Peter Parker, to the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in his letter of 9 July 1996, a copy of which is in the Library.

  I have set four broad objectives for the Review:

  (i) To determine whether the measures in the Regulations are sufficient to ensure that the UK is on course to meet the targets set by the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste;

  194

  (ii) To identify the scope for increased recycling and recovery of packaging waste so as to make a greater contribution to the UK's sustainable waste management strategy;

  (iii) To simplify the Regulations wherever possible, while fulfilling the requirements of the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62EC) and maintaining the "shared approach" legal obligation as the basis of the regulations;

  (iv) To achieve fairness in terms of the 15 December 1995 agreement on the sharing of the legal obligation between sectors and to encourage co-operation along the packaging chain.

  I am asking the Advisory Committee to let me have their recommendations on the best means of achieving these objectives and in addition to look at the following specific issues:

  (i) The case for separate targets for household and commercial and industrial recycling, and the scope for strengthening the local authority role;

  (ii) The case for additional regulatory measures to encourage minimisation, and reuse of packaging and greater consumer awareness of opportunities to minimise and recycle;

  (iii) The effectiveness of current requirements on evidence of compliance and in particular the system of proformas issued by accredited reprocessors (known as Producer Responsibility Notes) and whether this system should be retained in its present form or could be improved;

  (iv) How small businesses can best be encouraged to play a part in increasing recycling and recovery levels.

  I have asked the Advisory Committee to let me have their recommendations by the end of May and I will consider representations from all other interested parties before determining what proposals to bring forward for public consultation later in 1998.

  I have today also received the Advisory Committee's recommendations on the issues on which I asked for their views earlier this year. A copy of their advice is in the Library. With regard to readjustment of the shareout figures in the regulations, I agree with the Committee that the data provided so far this year are not sufficiently robust on which to base a new shareout allocation, and I have asked for further work to be carried out to validate these data, as far as is practicable. I will give further consideration to this and the other issues looked at by the Committee in bringing forward proposals for public consultation next year.

  Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (West Midlands)
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will investigate what arrangements the West Midlands Leasehold Valuation Tribunal will make to administer the valuation cases to be submitted on behalf of the Redditch Leasehold Action Committee; and what targets he has set for the maximum time that the leaseholders concerned should expect to wait after submission for decisions. [20462]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Leasehold Valuation Tribunals are statutorily independent bodies. I understand that the West Midland Leasehold Valuation Tribunal proposes to deal with these cases in batches of about 10 to 25, as submitted by the Agent for the Leaseholders. Applications on this scale have never had to be dealt with before, and the Tribunal has been in touch with the Agents for all the parties concerned throughout. Despite having no
  195
  powers to issue directions, it is proactively seeking to encourage the parties to identify and narrow the relevant issues prior to the hearings.

  The first batch is to be dealt with on 5 February 1998 and the intention is to hear subsequent batches at the rate of one per week.

  The West Midland Tribunal, of course, also has to deal concurrently with cases from other parts of their area.

  On this basis, the earliest cases will have taken approximately 12 months from receipt of the applications at the Tribunal offices to issue of the decisions, but these cases have been held back at the request of the parties awaiting the decisions on three earlier applications submitted by freeholders.

  It is anticipated that, as hearings progress, later cases should be decided in about half that time.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State fore the Environment, Transport and the Regions what public support has been provided to enable a train service from Edinburgh to run direct through the Channel Tunnel or to connect with the channel tunnel service at Waterloo. [20697]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The provision of rail services through the Channel Tunnel is the commercial responsibility of Eurostar (UK) Ltd. (EUKL), which was transferred to the private sector in May 1996. When EUKL (then called European Passenger Services Ltd.) was in Government ownership—9 May 1994 to 31 May 1996—direct grants totalling £423.7 million were made towards running costs and investment. No specific sums were, however, earmarked for the provision of services to or from Edinburgh.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to assist the development of a high-speed rail link from Edinburgh to the continent via the Channel Tunnel. [20698]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A new high speed rail link between the Channel Tunnel and London St. Pancras is planned to be completed in 2003. This new line, along with the East Coast Main Line, should provide for high speed trains between Edinburgh and the Continent.

  Heathrow Rail Link
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects work on the Heathrow rail link to(a) start and (b) be completed.[20938]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Heathrow rail link.[20937]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Heathrow Express project is progressing well with services due to start in mid 1998.

  Railtrack and BAA have taken forward a feasibility study looking at the potential for development of Heathrow-St. Pancras services. Investigations are at an early stage and it is not possible to say whether the scheme will be taken forward.

  Kyoto Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each of the delegations with whom he held meetings at the climate change conference in Kyoto; and if he will place in the Library copies of(a) all papers submitted by the United Kingdom to the conference and (b) all papers made available to the United Kingdom delegation by other parties to the conference in the period up to and including 10 December. [20770]

  Mr. Meacher
  During the recent climate change conference in Kyoto, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I held meetings with representatives from the following delegations:

  The European Commission and the member states of the European Union

  The Group of 77 (represented by Tanzania, India, China,
  Malaysia, Uganda, The Philippines, Colombia and Iran)

  The United States of America

  Japan Australia

  New Zealand

  India

  The United Nations Climate Change Secretariat

  In addition, the UK delegation had meetings at official level with a wide range of other countries including Canada, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Russia, Pakistan and St. Kitts-Nevis.

  I will shortly place in the Library copies of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement to the Conference and copies of those statements made by other parties which were made available to the United Kingdom delegation.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is proposing to take to bring to a conclusion the inquiry into terminal 5 at Heathrow. [20941]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. The conduct and timing of the inquiry is a matter for the Inspector who has been appointed to advise the Secretary of State on the proposed Terminal 5 and associated applications. The inquiry is currently expected to close in the second half of 1998.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the cost to public funds of the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry to date. [20942]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The estimated cost to date of the Terminal 5 inquiry to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, including its agencies, is about £8 million. It is estimated that the local authorities involved in the inquiry have spent around £6.5 million so far.

  Opencast Coal Mining
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conclusions he has reached from the recent consultation on the future of planning policy for opencast coal mining. [21011]
  197
  Mr. Caborn
  We have not yet reached any conclusion because we are still considering the large number of responses in the consultation exercise.

  Housing Repair
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of local government housing repairs take longer than four weeks to complete; and what steps the Government are taking to encourage local authorities to reduce that period. [20976]

  Mr Raynsford
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  The Government remain committed to the Right to Repair scheme, introduced for council tenants on 1 April 1994 as part of the Citizen's Charter initiative. This ensures that certain small, urgent repairs which might affect tenants' health, safety or security are done quickly, within 1 to 7 working days, according to the nature of the problem. The repairs covered by the scheme, and the prescribed periods in which the work must be carried out, are set out in the Schedule to the Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994. If such repairs are not carried out by the council within the statutory period, tenants may be eligible for compensation under the scheme.

  The Government are keen to encourage all local authorities to perform to the standards of the best in managing their properties, and are discussing with the Local Government Association and others how the new Best Value regime can be developed to achieve this.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria the Highways Agency uses to evaluate the siting of safety fencing on trunk roads. [20555]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]The criteria used by the Highways Agency to Evaluate the siting of safety fences on trunk roads is set down in departmental standard TD 19/85 "Safety Fences and Barriers" which is contained in Volume 2, Section 2 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. A copy of TD 19/85 is lodged in the House of Commons Library. This was amended by the statement made by the then Minister for Roads and Traffic to Parliament on17 December 1986,Official Report, column 535, which extended the provision of safety fencing to all dual carriageway trunk roads where it could be shown that this was justified by the traffic using the road. The Highways Agency together with the Transport Research Laboratory are examining accident data to evaluate the case for extending the provision of protection to roadside equipment and obstructions. If the results of this work indicate that a wider provision is necessary, revisions will be made to the Highways Agency standards in due course.

  Capital Receipts (Bolton)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the total capital receipts to be released to the borough of Bolton and over what period; and what proportion will be spent on housing. [20990]
  198
  Mr. Raynsford
  Under our Capital Receipts Initiative, the borough of Bolton will receive a total of £1.033 million in 1997–98 and £3.305 million in 1998–99. Decisions about levels of funding under the Initiative over the longer term, will be taken in our Comprehensive Spending Review. Information supplied by the borough suggests that in 1998–99 they intend to spend 85 per cent. of these additional resources on housing schemes with the remaining 15 per cent. being used to support housing related regeneration projects.

  Airport Signs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 547, concerning signs at airports, if she will require those words which do require to be used to appear additionally in other languages. [21141]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: No. Airports already provide supporting information in foreign languages where there is a specific need in a particular part of the airport. But to require the inclusion of foreign languages on signs would risk making them more difficult for passengers to absorb quickly, and would risk offending those whose languages were not used. If the hon. Member has a specific need at a particular airport in mind, he may like to discuss it with the airport management concerned.

  I am also taking this opportunity to clarify the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 10 December 1997, Official Report, column 547. The UK follows the Recommended Practice on international signs contained in the Chicago Convention, Annex 9, provision 6.9, which is that the international signs published jointly by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation should be used at airports and ports. Among the general principles set out in the joint publication (Document 9636) are that as far as possible symbols should be used without words on signs at airports and ports.

  Local Transport Infrastructure
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will announce the allocation of capital resources for expenditure on local transport infrastructure in 1998–99. [21611]

  Dr. Strang
  This year a total of £623 million is to be allocated to local highway authorities and passenger transport authorities in England for capital expenditure on their transport infrastructure in 1998–99. This consists of £155 million in transport supplementary grant (TSG), £40 million for Croydon Tramlink and around £427 million in annual capital guideline (ACG), supplementary credit approval (SCA), grant under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 and grant under section 13 of the Industrial Development Act 1982.

  In this year's settlement I am allocating resources to 10 new packages, of transport measures in addition to the 61 packages which are already being funded. A further six authorities will receive allocations to pursue specific measures in packages that are not yet ready for full acceptance. The total allocated to packages is increased by £6 million to £85 million. The West Midlands

  199
  metropolitan package will enjoy a rise of £1.175 million to allow accelerated progress on its bus-based strategy. The Avon package sees an increase of £1 million to deliver integrated transport measures in the Bristol, Bath and Weston-super-Mare areas.

  In addition to increased funding for multi-modal packages in 1998–99 we are raising the allocations for cross boundary projects in London which we judge to be the way to promote alternatives to the car in the capital. Support for the London Bus Priority Network rises by £2 million to £11 million, and the London Cycle Network gains a further £1 million to reach £5 million, £40 million goes to Croydon's Tramlink project now in progress.

  In Manchester £7.2 million is allocated to help with rebuilding the city centre following the IRA bombing.

  In a year of tight budgetary pressures these initiatives confirm the Government's resolve to pursue integrated transport policies which will reduce traffic by promoting sustainable alternatives to the private car.

  Safety is of primary importance. The £50 million allocated for improvements in locations with a poor accident record will keep up the momentum in the drive to meet current casualty reduction targets. The extra resources for transport packages will enhance safety even further by reducing traffic, calming that which remains, and furnishing better facilities for cycling, walking and public transport.

  A sum of £180 million is being allocated for the structural maintenance of principal roads, and the assessment, strengthening and structural maintenance of bridges.

  The allocation for major schemes already being supported is £280 million in 1998–99.

  Table 1 sets out the national totals for different types of expenditure. Table 2 shows the total amounts of grant, credit approvals and gross approved expenditure for each of the 149 local highway authorities, and the 6 passenger transport authorities. The Government Offices for the Regions are notifying them today of their allocations. Table 3 lists the allocations to transport packages. Copies of the tables have been placed in the Library.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he will make available to authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on 1 April 1996, 1997 or 1998 for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [21612]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 10 October I invited all authorities which are eligible to participate in the Local Government Reorganisation Costs Scheme for 1998–99, and which have been or are to be reorganised on or before 1 April 1998, to submit estimates of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transitional costs of reorganisation in 1998–99. On the basis, inter alia, of the information provided by the authorities, I have decided the maximum amounts that it would be appropriate to allocate towards such costs.
  200
  The amounts are as follows:

  Maximum amounts: £000s rounded

  Authority

  1998–99

  1996 reorganisations

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  720

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  2,284

  Stockton on Tees Borough Council

  1,646

  Bristol City Council

  1,268

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  1,280

  North Somerset Council

  652

  South Gloucestershire Council

  1,000

  Kingston upon Hull Council

  1,823

  East Riding Yorkshire Council

  4,259

  North Lincolnshire Council

  3,289

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  1,853

  Total

  20,074

  1997 reorganisations

  Luton Borough Council

  1,973

  Milton Keynes Borough Council

  2,250

  Derby City Council

  1,602

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  500

  Poole Borough Council

  1,100

  Darlington Borough Council

  993

  Brighton and Hove Council

  1,207

  Portsmouth City Council

  1,695

  Southampton City Council

  2,185

  Rutland Council

  1,065

  Stoke on Trent City Council

  1,348

  Swindon Borough Council

  902

  Total

  16,820

  1998 reorganisations

  Reading Borough Council

  2,081

  Slough Borough Council

  1,781

  Wokingham District Council

  2,262

  County of Herefordshire District Council

  5,155

  Worcestershire County Council

  1,150

  Malvern Hills District Council

  360

  Devon County Council

  715

  Plymouth City Council

  10,109

  Torbay Borough Council

  6,396

  Essex County Council

  2,683

  Southend on Sea Borough Council

  1,690

  Thurrock Borough Council

  3,067

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  3,334

  Nottingham City Council

  3,920

  Cheshire County Council

  2,275

  Halton Borough Council

  2,832

  Warrington Borough Council

  3,013

  Shropshire County Council

  994

  The Wrekin District Council

  4,301

  Kent County Council

  752

  Medway Towns Council

  5,674

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  320

  Peterborough City Council

  2,204

  Lancashire County Council

  1,465

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  3,349

  Blackpool Borough Council

  3,188

  Total

  75,070

  Combined total allocations

  111,964

  Redcar and Cleveland, York City and Leicester City Councils did not submit bids. Newbury District Council, The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, and Bracknell Forest Borough Council have not bid for SCA.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the application
  201
  by Railtrack for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 in respect of the Thameslink 2000 project is to be referred to Parliament as a scheme involving proposals of national significance. [21618]

  Dr. Strang
  Whilst my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees that the proposals in the draft Railtrack (Thameslink 2000) Order are important for London, he does not consider them to be of sufficient significance in national terms to fall within section 9 of the 1992 Act. The application will not therefore be referred to Parliament under the provisions of that section of the Act.

  Planning Blight
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the report of the interdepartmental working group on blight; and if he will make a statement. [21664]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have today placed copies of the final report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Blight in the Library. The report is accompanied by a draft Code of Practice on the dissemination of information during the various stages of major infrastructure developments. I have also deposited copies of the report of the research conducted by the City University Business School into the operation of compulsory purchase orders which is published today by the Stationery Office.

  The Interdepartmental Working Group on Blight was set up to review the scope, cause and effects of blight arising during the various stages of major infrastructure projects and to consider whether any practical changes can be made to the existing arrangements for property purchase and compensation throughout Great Britain.

  The Group has identified a number of options. One relates to the desirability of improving information flows at all stages of major infrastructure developments, and this provided the impetus for the Code of Practice. A further tranche of recommendations relates to relatively small-scale amendments to existing legislation. However, one recommendation (that a new property purchase guarantee and compensation scheme should be devised) would, if it were accepted, involve major changes to legislation. I should emphasise that this recommendation, which is born of a desire to reduce or eliminate generalised blight, does not undermine the fundamentals of the existing blight and compensation arrangements.

  The Group points out that although the focus of the review was generalised blight consequent upon proposals for major infrastructure projects, responses to the discussion paper issued in June last year suggested that the most effective remedy might lie in changes to the arrangements for addressing statutory blight. However, the Group, in seeking to ameliorate the worst effects of generalised blight in this way, has not sought to reassess compulsory purchase and compensation law in its entirety, nor has it considered it consistent with its terms of reference to recommend changes to the law which are not germane to the issue of generalised blight.

  The Group has delivered a detailed report on a subject of some complexity. None of the issues is clear-cut, nor are any of the options it has identified free from wider consequences. For this reason I am anxious that the report should be made widely available for discussion and comment before together with my ministerial colleagues
  202
  in Scotland and elsewhere, give further consideration to its findings. I am therefore publishing the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Blight, the draft Code of Practice and the draft Property Purchase Guarantee and Compensation Scheme. Comments from all those with an interest are invited by 31 March.

  Ministry of Defence Properties
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish guidance to those concerned with the disposal and subsequent development of surplus Ministry of Defence properties. [21665]

  Mr. Caborn
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I have today published guidelines on the joint working of Ministry of Defence and Regional Government Offices on the disposal of surplus MOD property. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The guidelines, which have been prepared with the close cooperation of the Government Offices in the Regions, MOD and my Department, are designed to help mitigate any adverse impact on a local community which may follow the closure of a defence establishment. We hope that, by putting in place arrangements for joint working between MOD and the Government Offices, and by bringing into discussions at an early stage local authorities and other agencies which may be involved in planning the future use of redundant sites, the full potential of these sits will be realised, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. It is hoped that these arrangements will also help speed up the disposal process. It should be noted, however, that these guidelines may, in due course, need to be revised to take account of research currently underway into the development of the redundant defence estate, and to reflect the establishment of the Regional Development Agencies. For this reason, they should be seen as interim.

  The guidelines, which I am sending to local authorities, bodies responsible for urban and rural regeneration, Government Offices and other interested bodies, will be freely available to other with an interest.

  Merchant Shipping (Donaldson Report)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress the Government has made implementing the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's inquiry into the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping. [21668]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have today placed copies of a progress note in the Library. This shows that the bulk of the Inquiry's recommendations have now been implemented, that the implementation of the majority of the remainder is ongoing, that some have been overtaken, and that only five are still under consideration.

  Fire Safety
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes he proposes to make to the building regulations in England and Wales to improve fire safety in buildings. [21092]
  203
  Mr. Raynsford
  I am issuing today a consultation paper which sets out proposed changes to the Approved Document which is published in support of Part B of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 1991, covering fire safety matters.

  The changes reflect experience of significant fires in buildings since the document was last revised as well as changes in construction practice. The text also reflects changes made to improve the clarity of the guidance in the light of queries received upon it.

  Amongst the changes proposed are a requirement for sprinklers to be installed in large single storey retail premises, and restrictions on the use of certain thermoplastic cored products with good insulation properties used in food processing factories and elsewhere. Both of these proposals have been brought forward with the safety of firefighters in mind as well as building users.

  Other changes include restrictions on the use of certain materials in lighting diffusers, and in respect of dwellings, additional guidance on the siting and installation of smoke alarms, including in loft conversions, and on the provision of suitable escape windows in habitable rooms.

  I am placing a copy of the consultation paper in the Library, comments on these proposals have been invited by 31 March 1998.

WALES

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the payments made to general practitioner fundholders in Wales in each year since 1990–91 in respect of(a) management allowances and (b) computer costs. [19940]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Reimbursement to general practitioner fundholders in respect of expenses covered by management allowances and associated computer costs since the inception of the scheme is as follows:

  £ million

  Management costs

  Computer costs

  1990–91

  0.112

  —

  1991–92

  0.518

  0.588

  1992–93

  1.677

  0.997

  1993–94

  3.055

  1.283

  1994–95

  3.795

  1.04

  1995–96

  6.707

  1.268

  Expenditure figures for 1996–97 are not available but provisional accounts suggest that the total sum amounts to £8.8 million for management allowance and £0.765 million for computers.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many four-year-olds were in(a) maintained reception classes, (b) maintained nursery classes or schools and (c) voluntary and private settings (i) on 23 September 1997 and (ii) in January 1996. [19939]
  204
  Mr. Hain
  The information is not available in the form requested. The January 1997 School census showed 35,313 pupils aged 4 were receiving at least part-time education in maintained nursery, primary and special schools, of whom 1,017 were in nursery schools, 7,746 in nursery classes in primary schools and 136 in special schools. This compares with 35,251 at January 1996, of whom 1,044 were in nursery schools, 7,828 in nursery classes in primary schools and 131 in special schools. Nursery voucher redemption statistics indicate that 2,407 four-year-olds were receiving at least part-time nursery education in private and voluntary settings in the Summer term 1997.

  Primary School Class Sizes
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage and how many primary school pupils were in classes of over(a) 30, (b) 36 and (c) 40 in January (i) in each local education authority in Wales and (ii) in total; and what was the actual and percentage change in numbers relative to January 1996 in each case. [19942]

  Mr. Hain
  The annual January Schools Census has collected information about the number of classes by size of class but not the total number of pupils in each class. The following table shows for each local education authority area the percentages of ordinary classes in maintained primary schools in January 1996 and 1997 which had more than 30, 35 or 40 pupils.

  Percentage of ordinary classes in maintained primary schools, by class size and local education authority area, January 1996 and 1997

  (A) With over 30 pupils

  (B) With over 35 pupils

  (C) With over 40 pupils

  Local education authority area1

  1996

  1997

  1996

  1997

  1996

  1997

  Isle of Anglesey

  6.1

  8.7

  0.4

  1.1

  0.4

  0.4

  Gwynedd

  12.6

  15.0

  1.4

  2.7

  0.2

  0.2

  Conwy

  25.4

  20.3

  2.7

  2.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Denbighshire

  27.7

  30.3

  4.0

  7.5

  0.0

  0.3

  Flintshire

  36.1

  34.1

  5.0

  4.0

  0.6

  0.4

  Wrexham

  30.8

  32.6

  3.5

  2.0

  0.3

  0.2

  Powys

  6.4

  10.3

  0.4

  1.9

  0.4

  0.2

  Ceredigion

  5.8

  5.3

  2.3

  1.5

  0.4

  0.4

  Pembrokeshire

  7.7

  8.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Carmarthenshire

  7.1

  6.4

  0.6

  0.6

  0.0

  0.0

  Swansea

  17.7

  19.7

  0.1

  0.9

  0.0

  0.0

  Neath Port Talbot

  14.0

  18.9

  0.4

  1.5

  0.2

  0.6

  Bridgend

  33.7

  40.2

  0.9

  4.0

  0.0

  0.0

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  15.2

  20.1

  1.0

  0.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Cardiff

  24.8

  29.7

  0.7

  1.5

  0.0

  0.1

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  28.4

  30.0

  2.1

  2.8

  0.1

  0.0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  27.3

  24.1

  1.4

  2.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Caerphilly

  28.5

  33.7

  2.6

  3.3

  0.0

  0.2

  Blaenau Gwent

  31.8

  26.7

  3.7

  3.6

  0.4

  0.0

  Torfaen

  39.5

  34

  4.2

  5.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Monmouthshire

  32.4

  39.6

  2.0

  4.5

  0.0

  0.4

  Newport

  37.7

  39.8

  4.5

  5.9

  0.0

  0.0

  Wales

  22.3

  24.3

  1.8

  2.5

  0.1

  0.1

  Source:

  Schools Census.

  Notes

  1Includes grant maintained schools.

  (A) Percentages in these columns include the percentages for the relevant year shown year (B).

  (B) Percentages in these columns include the percentages for the relevant year shown under (C)
  205
  From January 1998 the Schools Census will collect pupil numbers by class size.

  Capital Expenditure (Swansea)
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) of 1 December 1997,Official Report, columns 85–86, if he will make a statement on the level of publicly funded capital expenditure in the Swansea Council area in each of the past three years. [20007]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Not all this information is held centrally but the principal sums made available or committed over the past three years totalling £75.8 million were:

  £million

  European Regional Development Fund

  5.0

  Welsh Development Agency

  11.7

  Transport Grant/Supplementary Credit Approval

  36.4

  SportsLot

  1.3

  Welsh Arts Lottery Fund

  1.4

  Strategic Development Scheme

  12.6

  Wales Tourist Board

  0.3

  CADW

  0.1

  Heritage Lottery

  0.6

  Top Slice Housing Supplementary Credit Approval

  6.4

  These figures exclude sums made available through basic credit approvals, expenditure on further and higher education and more general housing provision.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on liaison between the unitary authorities and the Welsh office on the preparation of plans for public transport. [20311]

  Mr. Hain
  Following my decision earlier this year to expand the scope of the Transport Grant Scheme to cover integrated transport packages, I expect local authorities' plans for public transport to feature increasingly in the regular discussions of Transport Grant issues which take place between authorities and the Welsh Office.

  Teachers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full time teachers there were in(a) the primary and (b) the secondary sector in 1997; and what estimate he has made of the numbers in each case in 2000. [20099]

  Mr. Hain
  At January 1997 there were 11,859 qualified full time teachers in the maintained primary sector and 11,925 in the maintained secondary sector. By the school year 2000–01 the number of pupils in the primary sector is forecast to fall while numbers in the secondary sector are expected to rise. The extent to which teacher numbers reflect these changes will be determined by decisions made by local education authorities.

  Students
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students there were in further education in 1987; and what is the number for the last year for which figures are available. [20308]
  206
  Mr. Hain
  The number of students on further education courses at further and higher education institutions for 1987–88 and 1996–97 are given in the following table:

  Number of students on further education courses at further and higher education institutions in Wales

  1987–881

  1996–972

  Number of students

  69,837

  144,015

  Sources:

  Welsh Office (Further Education Student Record) and Further Education Funding Council for Wales (Individualised Student Record).

  Notes:

  1 At 1 November. Excludes the number of students at the Workers Educational Association and Young Mens Christian Association.

  2 Provisional. At 1 December. Includes the number of students at the Workers Educational Association and Young Mens Christian Association.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (i) access and (ii) foundation course students are currently enrolled on courses in Wales which(a) are and (b) are not an integral part of a course of higher education. [20091]

  Mr. Hain
  For access courses, figures collected by the Welsh Funding Councils show that there were 1,804 full-time students and 1,123 part-time students (including some on very short courses) on access to higher education courses in further education sector colleges and external institutions in Wales in 1996–97. Access courses are classed as further education courses, although some are designed for entry to specific higher education courses.

  Figures for foundation courses which are not parts of higher education courses are not available.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proportion of students went on to higher education (i) within one year and (ii) within three years of having completed a foundation or access course in Wales in the last year for which figures are available; [20093]

  (2) how many students currently enrolled on access and foundation courses in Wales applied for the course before 23 July; and if he will make a statement. [20092]

  Mr. Hain
  The information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what means-tested NHS bursaries he proposes to make available for medical and dental students in their fifth and subsequent years. [20096]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  This matter is still under consideration.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his estimate of the year on year revenue released from abolishing the assisted places scheme in(a) September 1998, (b) September 1999, (c) September 2000, (d) September 2001 and (e) September 2002; [20135]

  (2) what is his estimate of the year on year cost of additional teachers as a consequence of abolishing the assisted places scheme in (a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01, (d) 2001–02 and (e) 2002–03. [20134]
  207
  Mr. Hain
  Estimated annual revenue savings in Wales accruing from the phasing-out of the Assisted Places Scheme, for the period 1998–2002, is shown in the following table.

  Year

  Revenue released(£)

  1998–99

  1,350,000

  1999–00

  2,150,000

  2000–01

  2,700,000

  2001–02

  3,200,000

  2002–03

  3,750,000

  Total

  13,150,000

  The number of APS pupils in Wales returning to or needing to be accommodated in maintained schools will be small and we do not foresee the need for additional teachers. The likely numbers and associated cost of additional teachers in relation to the planned reduction of infant class sizes is not yet known. The Welsh Office will commence consultation with Directors of Education in January on delivering our class sizes pledge.

  Farmers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full-time farmers there were in Wales in(a) 1985, (b) 1986, (c) 1987, (d) 1988, and (e) the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [20309]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is shown as follows:

  Number of full-time farmers, partners and directors in Wales1

  Thousands

  1985

  24.5

  1986

  24.4

  1987

  23.5

  1988

  23.8

  1996

  21.2

  Source

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Censues.

  Note

  1 Figures are for those persons working on main and minor farm holdings on 1 June and exclude spouses of farmers, partners and directors, even though the wives/husbands themselves may be partners or directors.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites have been granted planning permission for wind farms; and if he will make a statement. [20330]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is not held centrally. Local planning authorities are primarily responsible for determining planning applications.208
  However, I understand that under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation orders there are 13 operational wind farm sites in Wales and that a further 4 have planning permission.

  Forest Enterprise
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full-time employees the Forestry Commission had in 1987; what is the current complement of staff working for Forest Enterprise; and if he will make a statement. [20307]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  In 1987 the Forestry Commission employed 867 staff in Wales. The Commission currently employs 425 staff in Wales, of whom 383 work for Forest Enterprise. These figures include part-time staff so that, for example, two staff who each work half a week have been counted as one.

  Further Education
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional funds he plans to make available for further education in Wales in 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [20094]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend will shortly be considering additional funding for the further education sector in Wales in 1997–98.

  Welsh Language (Patagonia)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department introduced a scheme to fund the teaching of Welsh in Patagonia. [20126]

  Mr. Hain
  It was announced in August 1996 that the Welsh Office would contribute towards a joint project with the British Council to help strengthen the language and cultural links between Wales and Patagonia. The project, which was intended to be of three years' duration, subject to satisfactory progress in the first year, commenced in April 1997. My right hon. Friend has recently agreed to the continuation of the project into its second year.

  Blue Flag Beaches
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Blue Flag beaches there were in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) at the latest available date. [20313]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is as follows:

  1995: 2

  1996: 4

  1997: 9.

  Agricultural Employment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed in agriculture in Wales in(a) 1986, (b) 1987 and (c) the most recent year for which figures are available. [20320]
  209
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is shown as follows:

  Number of persons employed in agriculture1

  Thousands

  1986

  56.1

  1987

  53.8

  1996

  52.8

  Source:

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Census.

  Note:

  1 Figures are for those persons working on main and minor farm holdings on 1 June and excludes spouses of farmers, partners and directors, even though the wives/husbands themselves may be partners or directors.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to deal with the effects of acid rain; and if he will make a statement. [20310]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The UK was one of the first countries to ratify the Second Sulphur Protocol under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. This commits the UK to reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide by 80 per cent. by 2010 compared with 1980 levels. The Government are currently taking an active part in negotiations in the EU on a Strategy to further combat acid deposition. This was discussed on 16 December at a meeting of EU Environment Ministers.

  Acid rain is an on-going transboundary issue and only by concerted action across Europe shall we deal effectively with the problem. The final report of the Welsh Acid Water Survey carried out in 1995–96 and commissioned by the Welsh Office and the Environment Agency was published on 26 November. The Survey indicates that although there are signs that the benefits of emission controls are being felt in the environment the recovery of sensitive ecosystems has been slow.

  NHS Bureaucracy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the sums saved in the NHS in Wales from reducing bureaucracy to date. [20728]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The suspension of the 8th wave of GP Fundholding released £1.9 million immediately.

  Trusts and authorities are working towards recurrent savings of £1.8 million and £2.3 million respectively. Information on the realisation of these savings is not collected in year. Figures for the whole year will be available from the 1997–98 audited accounts, which will be available in August 1998.

  NHS Contracts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to change the system of annual contracts in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [20732]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Guidance has already been issued to NHS Wales encouraging health authorities, trusts and GPs to enter into agreements which go beyond one year's duration.
  210
  A White Paper will be issued shortly which will provide more detailed proposals on the abolition of the internal market and on the mechanisms that will be introduced to replace it.

  Nutrition
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for improving nutritional standards. [20730]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Included in the targets my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has set NHS Wales is to work with others to increase by 2002 the proportion of people who eat green vegetables, salads and fresh fruit most days.

  The Health Promotion Authority for Wales whose role is to promote good health and prevent ill-health is also working towards improving nutrition in Wales. Activities include the provision of information to assist people to attain a healthy weight for their height; an examination of nutritional policies and standards in NHS hospitals; the monitoring of dietary interventions projects in schools, such as healthy tuck shops; and surveys every two years of adults' and childrens' dietary intake to identify trends and to highlight needs for intervention.

  In addition the Government intend that the Food Standards Agency, when constituted, will have an important role across the UK in providing advice on certain aspects of nutrition.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have been waiting for treatment for more than 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [20729]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Latest published figures for Health Authorities show that at the end of September 1997, 90 per cent. of Welsh residents had waited less than 12 months for inpatient or day-case hospital treatment; 6,810 people (10 per cent. of those on the waiting list) had waited more than 12 months.

  Telemedicine
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to encourage the use of telemedicine. [20731]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Wales has been at the forefront of developing telemedicine; an experimental project in North Powys showed the benefits to patients and practitioners from having electronic access to distant specialists. To take this work further, the Welsh Office is supporting the Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust in its "Keeping Care Local" project. This project will review the full range of trust services to find ways of using telemedicine technology to benefit much larger numbers of patients. The results will be published at a conference and exhibition on telemedicine in Cardiff on 27 and 28 April 1998. I expect health authorities and trusts to learn from such work and to exploit opportunities in their own areas.

SCOTLAND

  Water and Sewerage Authorities
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the external finance limits which will apply to the Scottish water and sewerage authorities in 1998–99 and in the following two years. [20741]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The External Finance Limit (EFL) for the three water authorities has been set at £185.956 million for 1998–99. Indicative EFLs for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 will be determined in the light of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  The allocation of EFLs to each authority in 1998–99 will be: East Authority £58.985 million, North Authority £55.582 million, and West Authority £71.389 million.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will amend the law to remove students from joint and several liability for council tax payments. [20351]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We intend to amend the council tax liability rules to remove students from joint and several liability from council tax as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Housing Association Rents
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total gross revenue from housing association rents in the last year; and what proportion of this was met by housing benefit. [20747]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The available information is as follows. In 1995–96, gross revenue from housing association rents in respect of housing associations registered in Scotland is estimated by Scottish Homes to have been £180 million. The Department of Social Security, which has responsibility for housing benefit, estimates that in the same year tenants of housing associations in Scotland—whether registered or not—received in total around £78 million of housing benefit.

  Starter Pistols
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy on the use of starter pistols; and what representations he has received from(a) the police and (b) representatives of athletic associations on this subject. [20800]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 contains an exemption which allows the possession of starting pistols by certain officials for use in the starting of athletics races. These pistols must be held on a firearm certificate which will be issued only where the police are satisfied that the individual requires the pistol because of the status of the athletics meetings at which he officiates. Most starting pistols can fire only blank rounds.

  No representations have been received from the police on this issue. The British Athletic Federation sought the retention of the exemption when the Government announced their intention to ban small-calibre pistols. The Federation is currently funding research into an effective alternative to the starting pistol.

  Marine Minerals
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the review of licensing arrangements for the dredging of marine minerals. [21620]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Currently the Crown Estate, as owners of the seabed, issue licences for minerals dredging. A prerequisite to the issue of a licence is a favourable "Government View" (GV) issued by the Scottish Office which co-ordinates and considers the views of Government Departments and responses to public consultation on the proposals before issuing a GV.

  After consideration of all the responses to earlier consultation on the review of the GV procedure, we have concluded that the way forward is to introduce statutory procedures for the better regulation of marine minerals dredging in Scotland to replace the non-statutory GV procedure. The new arrangements would be based on the Secretary of State for Scotland being responsible for administering, monitoring and enforcing the new dredging consents; those consents being subject to regular review; the costs of administering the new statutory procedures being recovered from operators; and a statutory right of appeal against refusal. Although to date there has only been limited dredging activity in Scotland, pending legislation an interim scheme will be introduced and administered by the Scottish Office in place of the Crown Estate's current role in the GV process.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the first annual report of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency will be published. [21621]

  Mr. Dewar
  I laid a copy of SEPA's First Annual Report and Accounts before both Houses on 16 December. It contains details of the progress made by SEPA in its first year of operation, and a copy of its accounts, which cover the first 18 months of its existence. I am pleased to see that SEPA has made a good start and has done very well to pull together the very diverse bodies from which it was formed. I am also satisfied that SEPA is now on a firm financial footing and can move forward confidently to bring about the continuing improvement of Scotland's environment which we all wish to see.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the new appointments to the three Scottish water authorities. [21666]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have made the following appointments to the three Scottish Water Authorities:North of Scotland Water Authority
  CouncillorColinRennie,CouncillorJoanEasten (re-appointment), NigelHawkins,AndrewLewis (re-appointment), Nicolas McAndrew (re-appointment).
  East of Scotland Water Authority
  Councillor Robert Cairns, Robin Bell (re-appointment), David Bleiman, John Broadfoot, Councillor Jeanette Burness, Councillor Thomas Dair, Councillor Ann Dickson (re-appointment).

  213
  West of Scotland Water Authority
  Norman Berry (re-appointment), Councillor Gerald Carroll, David Gray (re-appointment), Jane McKay, Councillor David Munn.

  Industrial Tribunal Decisions
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what estimate he has made of the number of industrial tribunal decisions which are fully complied with within a period of two months from the tribunal decision; [21171]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce procedures to allow for easier enforcement of industrial tribunal decisions; and if he will make a statement;[21173]

  (3) what mechanisms are available to ensure the enforcement of industrial tribunal decisions. [21172]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).

CABINET OFFICE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will provide a list of the areas on which he is prepared to answer questions in respect of the Millennium Experience and a list of the areas on which he is not prepared to answer questions. [21327]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I aim to answer all questions on my responsibilities to the best of my ability.

  Millennium Experience
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 388, concerning his meeting with the French Minister for European Affairs on 16 September, if any civil servants were present at the meeting; and if he will list the subjects discussed. [21351]

  Mr. Mandelson
  We discussed the Jobs Summit and French ideas for "Euro-X". Civil Servants were present.

DEFENCE

  Joint Fighter Project
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the Government are making to the United States joint fighter project; and when the aircraft is expected to enter service. [13860]

  Mr. Spellar
  The United Kingdom Government is contributing $200 million as a collaborative partner in the concept demonstration phase of the United States Joint Strike Fighter project. The aircraft is scheduled to enter service with the United States service in 2008. Procurement plans will, however, be considered as part of 'the Strategic Defence Review.

  Defence Procurement Industry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence procurement jobs there are in(a) England and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement. [20331]

  Mr. Spellar
  I assume the hon. Member's question refers to jobs in the Procurement Executive (PE) of the Ministry of Defence. At 1 April 1997 there were 6,199 PE posts in England and one PE post in Wales. The single post in Wales was transferred to England at the end of August 1997.

  Challenger 2 Tanks
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the(a) first and (b) last of the Challenger 2 tanks are expected to enter service; what is the current yearly delivery schedule; and what is the life expectancy of a single tank of the class. [20075]

  Mr. Spellar
  The first delivery of a production Challenger 2 main battle tank took place in August 1994. After reliability problems were confirmed in October 1995, no further tanks were accepted beyond the 36 already delivered. The successful completion of the Production Reliability Growth Trials in November 1997 means that deliveries of tanks are due to resume in January 1998 with the aim of completing deliveries to the first regiment in June 1998. Deliveries are planned to continue until February 2002. The current schedule of contract deliveries for the 386 tanks is as follows:

  1994–95:9

  1995–96:27

  1996–97:0

  1997–98:23

  1998–99:106

  1999–00:76

  2000–01:76

  2001–02:69.

  The current planned in-service life of a Challenger 2 tank is 30 years.

  Trawlers
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1997,Official Report, column 171, concerning intelligence gathered by trawlers (a) how many trawlers were used and from which ports (b) when this practice eased and (c) what financial arrangements were made to recompense the officers and crew used in such activities. [20355]

  Dr. Reid
  Three trawlers were used for specific intelligence gathering operations against the former Soviet Navy in the mid 1960s and early 1970s. These operations ceased in 1973. All of the vessels were owned by a Hull based company and almost certainly operated from that port. For those operations conducted in the 1960s, the owner was guaranteed compensation for loss of catch resulting from any diversion from the trawler's usual fishing grounds. Available records do not indicate whether similar arrangement existed for those carried out in the 1970s.

  Radiation Dose Records
  Mr Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made to date on entering the pre-1979 personal radiation dose records onto an electronic database for ex-employees, at the Chatham Dockyard; when this is expected to be completed; and when and in what format the data are to be published. [20465]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has completed the process of scanning onto the Dosimetry Information Database all the available dosimetry documents from the former Dockyard at Chatham that are not part of an Approved Dosimetry Service. This includes all such records from before 1979. The database complements the approved Dosimetry Service records and will allow searches for all of the information relating to an individual to be carried out much more speedily than in the past.

  The database contains personal data and it will not therefore be published.

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the people who have registered for the national counselling scheme in respect of exposure to radiation were informed that their adaption dose records could not be found; and, of these, how many were designated as(a) classified persons and (b) approved scheme workers under the approved dosimetry scheme that operated at their respective places of employment at the time of their employment. [20463]

  Mr. Spellar
  To date we have been unable to find radiation dose records for thirty four applicants to the national counselling scheme. Of these applicants none has been identified as a classified person and at least three were approved scheme workers.

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the individuals who have registered for the counselling scheme announced on 4 June, for whom no dose records could be found, were designated(a) classified persons and (b) approved scheme workers under the approved dosimetry scheme which operated at the Chatham Dockyard at the time of their employment. [20464]

  Mr. Spellar
  None of the individuals who have registered for the counselling scheme announced on 4 June and for whom no dose records can be found has been identified as a designated classified person. At least three were approved scheme workers.

  Navy Officers
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1997,Official Report, column 171, if he will make a statement on the scheme whereby Royal Navy officers gained sea-going experience in deep sea trawlers. [20354]

  Dr. Reid
  It has been long standing practice to send junior RN officers to sea on Merchant ships. In the 1950s this was extended to include deep sea trawlers. The aim was to provide sea going experience and to foster good relationships between the fleets. While the Royal Navy/Merchant Navy Voyage Scheme continues to this day, available records indicate that the use of trawlers ceased in the mid-1970s.

  Fleet Maintenance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current allocated work loads from his Department for(a) Devonport, (b) Rosyth and (c) the Royal Navy's Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation. [20684]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD allocated workloads for each of Devonport, Rosyth and the Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation (FMRO), for the current year, 1997–98, are shown below. These figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and are based on MOD planning assumptions only. The actual workloads will depend on the outcome of contract negotiations.

  Manweeks

  Devonport

  76,000

  Rosyth

  77,000

  FMRO

  26,000

  Service Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his comprehensive review of the arrangements for compensating service personnel or their dependants and for the payment of death and invalidity pension benefits will(a) commence and (b) report to Ministers; when he expects to publish the results and the consultation document; if the review will consider the arrangements applicable to (i) civilian Ministry of Defence employees and (ii) private sector contractors' staff where death or injury was attributable to service supporting the uniformed military in training or on operations; and if he will make a statement. [21122]

  Dr. Reid
  The review of the arrangements for compensating Service personnel who suffer death or injury as a result of their military service which was announced on 8 December will commence in January. The aim will be to complete the review in time for the publication of a consultative document next Summer. The review will be limited to consideration of the compensation arrangements for Service personnel and their dependants.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average annual cost of storing spent nuclear submarine nuclear fuel rods at the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield. [21216]

  Dr. Reid
  The average annual running cost of storing spent fuel from nuclear submarines at BNFL Sellafield is £1.4 million.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the average annual costs of storing decommissioned nuclear powered submarines at Rosyth and Devonport. [21218]

  Mr. Spellar
  The average cost of storing the Royal Navy's fully decommissioned nuclear powered submarines at Rosyth and Devonport is £93,000 per vessel.

  Naval Establishments
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the primary roles and functions of the Royal Navy establishment at Northwood. [21211]

  Dr. Reid
  The primary role and function of HMS Warrior, the Royal Navy establishment at Northwood, is to provide the support and infrastructure to the other units resident at the Northwood HQ. These other units are: The Commander in Chief Fleet, The Flag Officer Submarines; Headquarters 11/18 Group RAF; The UK Permanent Joint Headquarters and a major NATO headquarters.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the annual running costs of the Royal Navy establishment at Northwood. [21212]

  Dr. Reid
  The estimated running cost for HMS Warrior, the Royal Navy establishment at Northwood for 1997–98, including Service Pay, is some £17.5 million.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason figures are not available for the perceived religious and community origin of serving members of the Royal Irish Regiment General Service Batallion. [20323]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]Under the terms of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts 1976 and 1989, my Department is required to monitor the religious/community background of employees wholly or mainly employed in Northern Ireland. The General Service soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment are not wholly or mainly employed in Northern Ireland and are not subject to the Act. There is therefore no requirement to monitor the religious/community background of this or any other General Service Battalion and the information requested is not monitored centrally in Northern Ireland. However, my Department estimate that the perceived religious/community origin of the General Service Battalion is broadly 70–75 per cent. Protestant and just over 20 per cent. Roman Catholic.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will approximate to district council constituencies the field of operations of each battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service. [20325]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]In broad terms, the information requested is set out below:

  3rd Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment: Craigavon, Lisburn, Banbridge

  4th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment: Fermanagh

  5th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment: Magherafelt, Limavady, Coleraine, Moyle, Ballymoney

  7th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment: Belfast, North Down, Castlereagh

  8th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment: Armagh

  9th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment: Lisburn, Antrim.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in the last month for which figures are available how many Royal Irish Regiment patrols were(a) accompanied by the RUC and (b) unaccompanied. [20287]
  218
  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]The information requested for the period of 10 November to 8 December 1997 (inclusive) is set out as follows:

  Battalion

  Number of patrols accompanied by RUC

  Number of patrols unaccompanied by RUC

  3rd Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  58

  38

  4th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  230

  0

  5th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  11

  13

  7th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  0

  0

  8th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  175

  58

  9th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  50

  0

  A patrol is defined as any foot or mobile patrol in support of the RUC, regardless of size or duration. Patrols conducted by the Army for local security around bases are not included.

  West Indies Guardship
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 December 1997,Official Report, column 383, concerning the West Indies Guardship, where and when discussions took place with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development; and if minutes were taken at the meeting. [21292]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development had informal discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about this matter in the precincts of the House. The date of these discussions has not been recorded and no minutes were taken.

HEALTH

  Drugs (Licensing)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are applied to new drugs to assess their effectiveness before they receive a licence for general use. [17032]

  Ms Jowell
  The marketing authorisation (the licensing) of all medicines throughout the European Union is governed by the Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union, in particular, Council Directive 65/65/EEC. Under these rules a licence application is refused if the medicinal product is harmful in the normal conditions of use, or if its therapeutic efficacy is lacking or is insufficiently substantiated, or if there are concerns about its qualitative and quantitative composition. In this context "therapeutic efficacy" and "clinical effectiveness" are judged to be synonymous.

  Bone Marrow Donors
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to encourage people from ethnic minorities to volunteer as bone marrow donors. [19170]

  Mr. Boateng
  Bone marrow donors are recruited through two organisations. The British Bone Marrow Register is funded through the national health service and recruits from blood donors at blood donation sessions. The Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust is a charity funded by voluntary giving and recruits donors from the general public through local and national publicity campaigns. Both of these organisations, as well as some local campaigns, are working to encourage donation from ethnic minority groups.

  The Anthony Nolan Trust has been particularly active in this field, both nationally and locally. It has produced leaflets and posters to encourage donations from the African-Caribbean community and has also worked to encourage people from the Greek and Turkish communities to come forward as donors. This year the Department funded through the Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust a commercial to be included in Asian video films to appeal to the Asian community to donate blood and bone marrow.

  There have also been local campaigns. In Birmingham, for example, transplant co-ordinators have produced a multi-ethnic poster to encourage donation generally (the poster features the organ donation card) by people from ethnic minority groups.

  More generally, there are continuing campaigns to encourage positive attitudes towards tissue donation. During this year, the Department is promoting a wide range of measures designed to increase the number of regular blood donors through raising awareness of the need to maintain supplies of blood to hospitals. This includes the launch this year of a new 3 to 5 year publicity strategy, designed to increase the current donor base. As the British Bone Marrow Register recruits solely from those who are blood donors any success in increasing blood donation should also lead to increased numbers registering as potential bone marrow donors.

  NHS Trust Hospitals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current total of NHS trust hospitals. [19557]

  Mr. Milburn
  Prior to 1991 information was available centrally on the number of hospitals with residential facilities. Data ceased to be collected at unit level in 1991.

  The number of national health service hospital trusts in England is 399, although a trust may consist of more than one hospital.

  Dental Treatment (Deaths)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by NHS Executive region, the total number of children who have died under general anaesthetic for dental treatment for each year since 1979. [20371]
  220
  Mr. Milburn
  The data held centrally are not broken down by region. The table covers children under 15 to 1982 and under 16 thereafter.

  Deaths of children associated with general anaesthesia for dental treatment

  Number

  1979

  0

  1980

  2

  1981

  1

  1982

  1

  1983

  1

  1984

  1

  1985

  4

  1986

  2

  1987

  2

  1988

  0

  1989

  3

  1990

  0

  1991

  0

  1992

  4

  1993

  1

  1994

  0

  1995

  0

  1996

  1

  1997

  1

  Ectopic Pregnancies
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women have(a) been admitted to hospital with and (b) died as a result of ectopic pregnancies in each of the last 20 years. [20677]

  Ms Jowell
  The information available is in the table.

  England

  Deaths from ectopic pregnancies1

  Admissions to hospital2

  1977

  9

  40,503

  1978

  6

  39,503

  1979

  3

  3,940

  1980

  10

  3,570

  1981

  5

  3,930

  1982

  2

  4,270

  1983

  6

  4,700

  1984

  3

  4,830

  1985

  3

  4,640

  1986

  2

  2n/a

  1987

  4

  n/a

  1988

  4

  n/a

  1989

  6

  n/a

  1990

  6

  89,885

  1991

  4

  9,231

  1992

  4

  9,978

  1993

  1

  10,074

  1994

  5

  9,694

  1995

  6

  9,722

  1996

  4

  9,525

  1Source: Office for National Statistics (ONS).

  2Source: Department of Health, Statistics Division SD2B.

  3England and Wales figures only available.

  4Information from 1979 to 1985 is obtained from the Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE). The Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) system replaced HIPE and 1989–90 is the earliest year for which HES data were published.

  5Hospital statistics from 1990 are for financial year ending 31 March.

  n/a = not available.
  221
  Figures for 1977–78 use the International Classification of Diseases code Eighth Revision, (ICD 8) category 631; 1979–96 uses the International Classification of Disease code Ninth Revision (ICD 9) category 633; and 1995–96 uses the International Classification of Disease code Tenth Revision (ICD 10) category 000.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received in response to the de-registering of patients who have not visited their dentist within the last 15 months; and if he will make a statement. [21322]

  Mr. Milburn
  From 1 September 1996, the registration period for both adult continuing care and child capitation was harmonised to provide patients with a period of continuing dental care for 15 months following each course of treatment. The aim of the changes was to improve value for money by focusing payments to dentists on those patients receiving active care from them.

  Patients lapse from dentists' lists only if they have not seen their dentists since they registered. This is so, irrespective of the length of the registration period. Patients who attend their dentist at least every 15 months, have their registration period rolled forward automatically for another 15 months when they attend. They will notice no difference from the changes. Less regular attenders are still fully entitled to NHS dental treatment.

  The changes to the registration periods were agreed with the British Dental Association (BDA) before they were implemented in September 1996. The BDA has recently changed its position, and has asked the Department to look again at the length of the registration periods.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to encourage patients to register with their dentists before the Government regulations relating to patients who have not visited their dentist within the last 15 months are enforced. [21324]

  Mr. Milburn
  Patients who attend their dentist regularly will not be affected by the change in registration period. Less regular attenders are still fully entitled to National Health Service dental treatment, and are free to register at any time with a dentist willing to accept them.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish his response to the conclusions of the BMA on the value of medicinal cannabis. [21047]

  Ms Jowell
  We have no plans to publish the reply sent to the British Medical Association (BMA). Department of Health officials will meet representatives of the BMA in the new year to discuss their report "The therapeutic uses of cannabis".

  Tobacco
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will prevent the sale of tobacco products by anyone younger than the minimum age at which those products may legally be purchased. [20410]
  222
  Ms Jowell
  The Government currently have no plans to do so.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the terms of reference are for the evaluation being conducted for his Department of residential and village community provision for people with a mental handicap; who is conducting the study; how much it will cost if the work was put out to tender; and when the main findings are expected. [20411]

  Mr. Boateng
  The evaluation consists of two phases. The first phase was in two parts. First, a review of literature on residential provision for people with learning disabilities. The terms of reference were"to assess the state of knowledge about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different forms of residential accommodation for people with learning disabilities".
  Secondly, an analysis of available information on the costs of village communities. The terms of reference were
  "to analyse and compare any information which is readily available on the financial costs of village communities and other forms of residential provision for people with learning disabilities".

  Professor Eric Emerson of Hester Adrian Research Centre, University of Manchester, successfully competed for the contract for the first phase of the research which cost £26,471. The results of the first phase were published in July 1996 and distributed to social services departments and chief executives of health authorities.

  The second phase consists of two related parts. The first will look at a sample of 300 people with learning disabilities living in residential or village communities, and 300 people with learning disabilities living in small scale community-based residential services. In the second part, more detailed information will be collected on two smaller matched sub-samples of people with profound multiple learning disabilities living in residential or village communities, and small scale community-based residential services.

  Analyses of the data will focus upon: (1) describing and comparing the characteristics of the people served, the types of services received, the costs of services received and the outcomes associated with the two approaches to residential provision; and (2) examining the inter-relationships between the characteristics of the people served, the types of services received, the costs of services received and the resulting outcomes within and across the two types of provision.

  To avoid any undue delay in the start of the second phase of the research, and because he successfully completed the first phase, Professor Eric Emerson of the Hester Adrian Research Centre, University of Manchester, was approached on a single tender basis to take the second phase forward. Professor Martin Knapp of the Personal Social Services Research Unit at the London School of Economics is undertaking the economic aspects of the research.

  The study was commissioned in December 1996 at a cost to the Department of £274,464. Main findings from the study are expected in December 1998.

  HIV/AIDS
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his plans to increase the efficacy of HIV/AIDS educational initiatives to young people. [20717]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health has a contract with the Health Education Authority to undertake HIV/AIDS health promotion work for the general population. Most of these initiatives are currently aimed at 16 to 24–year-olds and provide information about HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and how to avoid them. The Government are committed to ensuring that such work is effective, evidence-based and properly evaluated through the use of research and pre-testing.

  Ministers have recently announced the establishment of a Task Group which will look at Sex and Relationships Education. It will support the continued development of sex and relationships education in schools and youth settings. The Department for Education and Employment will be fully involved.

  NHS Trusts (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of merging NHS trusts serving East Sussex; and if he will make a statement. [21354]

  Mr. Milburn
  No proposals for the merger of National Health Service trusts within East Sussex have been received. Mergers arising from local decisions will be considered on their merits, on the basis of demonstrable benefits in health and healthcare, and savings in administration.

  Long-stay Facilities
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 July 1997,Official Report, columns 162–63, on long-stay facilities, if he will provide the same information for each year since 1989. [13056]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]The average daily number of available beds in the three main service areas where long stay provision is concentrated are set out in the tables.

  I regret that the information provided in my reply of 15 July 1997 at columns 162–63 was incorrect. The figure in the table for 1993–94 under the heading Learning Disability reads 17,000. The correct figure is 16,000 as shown in the table. The figure for 1994–95 reads 14,000. This too is incorrect and should read 13,000.

  Table 1: Average daily number of available beds in NHS hospitals in England since 1988–89

  Sector

  Geriatric

  Mental health

  Learning disability

  1988–89

  51,000

  63,000

  30,000

  1989–90

  49,000

  59,000

  26,000

  1990–91

  46,000

  55,000

  23,000

  1991–92

  42,000

  50,000

  21,000

  1992–93

  40,000

  47,000

  19,000

  1993–94

  37,000

  44,000

  16,000

  224

  Table 1: Average daily number of available beds in NHS hospitals in England since 1988–89

  Sector

  Geriatric

  Mental health

  Learning disability

  1994–95

  37,000

  42,000

  13,000

  1995–96

  34,000

  39,000

  13,000

  1996–97

  32,000

  38,000

  10,000

  Source

  DH form KHO3 1988–89 onwards.

  For 1996–97, beds in Residential care wards, managed by the National Health Service, were counted separately for the first time. These figures are not included in table 1.

  Table 2: Average daily number of available beds in Residential care wards managed by the NHS in England 1996–97

  Sector

  Mental illness>

  Learning disability

  Other

  1996–97

  1,000

  3,000

  0

  Source:

  DH from KH03 1996–97.

  Note:

  "O" denotes "500" or less.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD?

  Surplus Food Scheme
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is the Government's intention to participate in the EU Surplus Food Scheme in 1998; and if he will make a statement. [21658]

  Mr. Rooker
  Yes. The European Commission has allocated the United Kingdom some £20.3 million to operate the Scheme during 1998. Approximately 10 million cans of stewed steak will be made available to local authorities and to charitable and other non-profit making organisations to distribute to those on Income Support, Family Credit, Jobseekers Allowance (income based only) or Disability Working Allowance, the homeless and destitute and those living in welfare hostels.

  The Scheme will involve only UK intervention beef which contains no offal and will be from animals killed when they were under thirty months of age and is no different from the meat currently available in the shops.

  I am pleased that this surplus beef is to be put to good use.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on the practice of feeding animal products to animals of the same species; and if he will make a statement. [21657]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  At my request, at its meeting on 2 December the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee considered the practice of feeding animal
  225
  by-products to animals of the same species. The committee's advice is being published in full, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The committee did not consider that there was an immediate risk from intraspecies feeding. However, they thought it possible that TSEs might arise spontaneously in any species with a prion protein gene, and that if this were the case the practice of recycling waste as feed within a species could spread any resultant disease. The committee describes the risk here as small, but considered that it could not be discounted completely.

  The committee has recommended that the Government develop a strategy to remove this risk, taking account of practical enforcement considerations and alternative disposal option, and discuss it with EC partners. Although the risk is small, I intend to accept this recommendation on a precautionary basis.

  Essentially this means that the current practices of processing certain types of waste containing porcine material and feeding it as swill to pigs, and using poultry and feather meal as high protein ration for poultry, will have to end. Before legislating, however, I shall, as advised, consider the alternative routes for disposing of such waste. I am currently conducting a review of national animal waste legislation and intend to issue proposed legislation for consultation early in the New Year. That will set out our proposals in respect of pig swill subject to any further discussions in the European Community. I shall use that opportunity to ask for comments on the other issue raised by SEAC's advice. Subject to those comments, I also envisage bringing forward legislation to ban the recycling of poultry meals as poultry feed, but want to sound out Community partners first.

  This action to avoid any possibility that a risk which the committee described as "small" and "potential" means that consumers will continue to enjoy the highest possible protection against the risks from TSEs, and give the assurance that pig and poultry products remain TSE free.

  Mussel Seed Licences
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will continue to make available licences to take mussel seed stock for the purpose of ongrowing; and if he will make a statement. [21663]

  Mr. Morley
  This year licences have been made available on request to registered shellfish farmers in England and Wales to enable them to collect wild mussel seed for cultivation on registered shellfish farms. We shall continue to make such licences available and will be discussing the detailed arrangements with the shellfish industry and with other interests. Vessels licensed in this way will not count against the United Kingdom's objectives under the EU's Multi-Annual Guidance Programme.

  British Cattle Movement Service
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on progress on setting up the British Cattle Movement Service at Workington. [21661]
  226
  Mr. Rooker
  I am glad to report that refurbishment work has been completed at three out of the four buildings at the British Cattle Movement Service site at Workington. One building was handed over to MAFF in November, and a further two are being completed and handed over today. Work is now underway to equip these buildings ready for occupation. The fourth building will be handed over next year.

  I am also pleased to announce that we have appointed a Director of the British Cattle Movement Service following an open competition. He is David Evans, currently Assistant Regional Director at the MAFF Regional Service Centre at Carlisle.

  These developments are milestones in the important task of setting up the British Cattle Movement Service, which will run the new computerised cattle tracing system for Great Britain.

  Fisheries (Quota Hopping)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is taking in respect of the purchase of quota-hopping fishing vessels or their licences. [20261]

  Mr. Morley
  Under EC law, Ministers cannot discriminate against nationals from other Member States who are entitled to purchase British registered fishing vessels and to acquire the licence entitlements arising from such vessels.

  Any qualifying UK registered vessel can apply to decommissioning schemes.

  Animal Welfare and Specified Risk Materials
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the(a) welfare and (b) specified risk materials regulations in other EU countries relative to those obtaining in the United Kingdom. [20248]

  Mr. Morley
  (a) On animal welfare, the Member States of the European Union are obliged to give effect to the various requirements of EU law in relation to animal welfare on farm, in transit, at market and at slaughter, as well as to the provisions of the related Council of Europe Conventions.

  (b) Controls on specified material from cattle, similar to those which exist in the UK, are carried out in France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal. France, the Netherlands and Spain have controls on specified material from sheep and goats.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he proposes to make changes to the arrangements for the licensing of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels when implementing the United Kingdom's latest multi-annual guidance programme (MAGP IV); and if he will make a statement. [21659]
  227
  Mr. Morley
  The existing arrangements for the licensing of fishing vessels will continue to operate subject to certain changes which are set out below.

  Segmentation of the Fleet
  The UK's multi annual guidance programme will set for each segment of our fishing fleet objectives to be met by 31 December 2001. There will be eight segments as follows:

  pelagic trawls and purse seines

  beam trawls

  demersal and nephrop trawls and seines lines and nets

  shell-fish mobile gear

  shell-fish fixed gear

  distant waters subdivided according to whether the vessels are exclusively or predominately active in non EU waters.

  small scale coastal vessels under 10 metres.

  The means by which these objectives are achieved will vary from segment to segment. They may involve restrictions and/or reductions in fishing effort or capacity or a combination of both.
  From 1 January 1998, each fishing vessel will be assigned to a single segment, based on the principal activity recorded as being undertaken in 1996. Vessels which are new to the fleet or those which recorded no fishing activity in 1996 have been assigned to segments on the basis of earlier recorded activity or on the basis of other information available to Departments. The allocation of vessels to segments will be reviewed during 1998 to take account of fishing activity up to and including 1997. Departments will take into account information provided by owners where:

  (i) the segmentation has been based on no recorded fishing activity;

  (ii) a vessel is new to the fleet;

  (iii) a vessel has engaged in a licence transaction as a result of which its fishing opportunities have materially changed.

  Such information must be provided by 31 March 1998.
  Once a fishing vessel has been assigned to a particular segment its capacity and fishing activity will continue to be recorded against that segment until further notice. Vessel owners will however be free to change the pattern of their fishing effort within any segment subject to any limitations posed by their fishing vessel licences.
  Restrictions on Fishing for Pelagic Species
  From 1 April 1998 UK registered fishing vessels eligible to fish for more than 500 tonnes of pelagic species—herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, pilchards, sprats and blue whiting—will be restricted to existing vessels in the fleet which on 17 December 1997: (a) held an existing category A pelagic (purse seine or freezer trawler) licence; or (b) held an existing category A licence and caught at least 500 tonnes of pelagic species in any of the four years 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997.
  Eligible vessels other than purse seiners and freezer trawlers will have their existing licences replaced by a new category A pelagic (trawler) licence. Any vessel which already holds a beam trawler licence will be permitted to continue to fish by that method.
  Vessels holding category A pelagic (purse seine or freezer trawler) licences or category A pelagic (trawler) licences will also be able to fish for demersal species and pelagic species other than herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, pilchards, sprats and blue whiting, subject to complying with any licence or other restrictions in force or that may be imposed.
  Any person who would not qualify for a category A pelagic (trawler) licence under the criteria outlined above but who considers that they should be issued with such a licence must advise the Fisheries Departments by 31 January 1998. Such applicants must: (a) have introduced a registered and licensed vessel into the UK fleet during 1997 with the intention of catching more than 500 tonnes of herring, mackerel, horse
  228
  mackerel, sprats, pilchards or blue whiting; or (b) have entered into an enforceable financial commitment on or before 17 December 1997 to introduce a fishing vessel intended to catch more than 500 tonnes of herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, sprats, pilchards or blue whiting.
  Documentary evidence of such an intention or enforceable financial commitment must also be presented to the Fisheries Departments by 31 January 1998.
  Ring Fencing of Pelagic Licences
  From 1 April 1998 vessels holding a category A pelagic (purse seine or freezer trawler) licence or a category A pelagic (trawler) licence will be ring fenced. Anyone wishing to introduce a new vessel into the pelagic fleet or to modify an existing pelagic vessel may only do so by acquiring an entitlement to a pelagic (purse seine or freezer trawler) licence or to a pelagic (trawler) licence. Within the ring fence it will not be possible to undertake a single licence transfer which involves the placement of a pelagic (trawler) licence on a pelagic freezer trawler or purse seiner.
  Existing capacity penalties—10 per cent. for licence transfers and 20 per cent. for licence aggregations—will continue to apply to all licence transactions within the pelagic ring fence, as will existing restrictions on engine power and tonnage. However from 1 April 1998 the replacement or modification of purse seiners or pelagic freezer trawlers will be subject to a zero capacity penalty where single licence transfers occur or to a 10 per cent. capacity penalty where the aggregation of licences occurs. Any freezer trawler must be capable of processing at least 30 tonnes of pelagic species per day.
  As from today it will no longer be possible to aggregate white fish licences with pelagic (purse seine or freezer trawler) licences to undertake minor engine modifications. The provision to park licences on purse seiners or freezer trawlers for up to two years pending their replacement or modification will also be terminated from this date.
  As at present there will be no restrictions on category A pelagic licences being downgraded to ordinary category A white fish licences.
  The Recording of Engine Power on Fishing Vessel Licences
  For all licence transactions which will take place from 1 January 1999 the Fisheries Departments propose that the engine power to be recorded on the fishing vessel licence shall be the maximum continuous engine power that is capable of being generated by the vessel's engine. It is further proposed that this provision be extended on 1 January 2000 to all vessels licensed before 31 December 1998. Where fishing vessels engines have been permanently derated, the derated engine power will be treated as the maximum continuous engine power.
  In parallel with the arrangements set out in the previous paragraph the Fisheries Departments will be undertaking random checks to ensure that the maximum continuous engine power of fishing vessels is not greater than that which is stated on the fishing vessel licence.
  Review of the Licensing Arrangements
  The present system of licensing has evolved over a long period following the agreement of the Common Fisheries Policy in 1982. It is the mechanism through which the Fisheries Departments seek to regulate both fishing activity and the size and structure of the UK fleet. Over the years the system has become highly complex in terms of the number of different licences that are issued, the conditions which are attached to the licences, the arrangements for transferring and aggregating licences, and the operation of capacity penalties and tonnage and engine power constraints which together exert downward pressure on the size of the UK fleet. Although a number of changes to the licensing arrangements have been announced today, I believe that it would be beneficial to undertake a more detailed review of the operation of the arrangements to establish whether they are necessary and if so how they may be improved. In undertaking such a review it is important to take account of the knowledge and expertise that lies within the fishing industry. To this end I propose that a series of

  229
  meetings should be held with representatives of the principal fishermen's organisations and that a report on the conclusions reached be presented to Ministers. This forum will also be invited to consider what arrangements might be made to accommodate the recording of maximum continuous engine power on fishing vessel licences.

  SEAC (Membership)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the scientists who sit on SEAC indicating other organisations for which they work. [20362]

  Mr. Rooker
  The table lists the current members of SEAC and the organisations for which they work.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to our hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) on 24 July 1997, Official Report, column 710, which declared SEAC members' commercial and non-commercial interests.

  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  Chairman:
  Professor J. R. Pattison—Professor of Medical Microbiology and Dean of the University College, London Medical School.

  Deputy Chairman:
  Dr. R. G. Will—Consultant Neurologist at Western General Hospital (Edinburgh) and Head of the National CJD Surveillance Unit.

  Members:
  Professor J. W. Almond—Virologist and Professor of Microbiology at the University of Reading.
  Mr. R. Bradley CBE—Veterinary Pathologist and Chairman of the BSE sub-group of the EC Scientific Veterinary Committee.
  Professor F. Brown FRS—Virologist and Chemist employed by United States Department of Agriculture. Formerly Deputy Director (Scientific) of the Animal Virus Research Institute (now known as the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright).
  Professor J. Collinge—Professor of Molecular Neurogenetics, Neurogenetics Unit, incorporating the Prion Disease Group, at Imperial College School of Medicine; Honorary Consultant Neurologist at St. Mary's Hospital and the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London.
  Professor W. D. Hueston—Veterinary Epidemiologist and Professor of Veterinary Medicine at University of Maryland, USA.
  Dr. R. H. Kimberlin—Independent Consultant on scrapie and related diseases.
  Dr. M. Painter—Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, City of Manchester Infection and Control Surveillance Unit.
  Mr. D. B. Pepper—Private Veterinary Surgeon (retired).
  Professor P. G. Smith—Epidemiologist, Head of Department of Communicable and Tropical Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
  Dr. W. A. Watson—Former Director of the Central Veterinary Laboratory.

  Farming (New Entrants)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is taking to encourage young people to enter the farming profession with particular reference to hill farming. [20370]
  230
  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to our hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on 19 November 1997,Official Report, column 230.

  In addition, Regulations laid on 3 December 1997 will help new entrants to sheep and suckler cow farming to obtain quota from the national reserve.

  Belgian Cattle (BSE)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if BSE has been detected in Belgian cattle destined for the United Kingdom pet food market. [20363]

  Mr. Rooker
  One case of BSE has been reported in Belgium. The carcase of the affected animal was rendered, and we understand that the resulting meat and bone was exported to the Netherlands and Poland. We have no reason to believe that any part of the affected animal was imported into the UK for use in pet food.

  >Over Thirty Months Scheme
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation is available to the owner of a three-year-old heifer which is barren but cannot be sold into the food chain under the Over Thirty Months Scheme. [20369]

  Mr. Rooker
  The compensation available for animals entering the Over Thirty Months Scheme is determined by weight up to a maximum weight limit of 560 kg (liveweight). The maximum compensation available for steers and heifers at current exchange rates is £350.67.

  Meat (Growth Hormones)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the testing procedure used to ensure that no meat containing artificially added growth hormone is imported into the United Kingdom. [20368]

  Mr. Rooker
  The import from third countries of meat and meat products derived from animals treated with hormonal growth promoters has been banned since 1988, as has the use of these substances within the European community. Member states are responsible for implementing and policing the Community ban in respect of their own national production. Veterinary experts from the Commission may make on-the-spot checks to ensure the relevant Directives are being uniformly applied in all Member States.

  Any third country wishing to export fresh meat to the European Union must submit residue sample plans to the Commission. These describe the residue sampling programme to be undertaken in respect of their meat production and must provide guarantees which are at least equivalent to the requirements of the Community on EC producers in respect of the banned substances.

  Any third country which permits the use of growth promoting hormones is required to guarantee that no animal and no meat coming from animals to which they have been administered will be exported to the Community. Imports must be certified accordingly and Commission inspectors verify compliance with all the

  231
  requirements when they carry out periodic checks on third country slaughterhouses authorised to produce meat for export to the Community.

  Port Health Authorities (or local authorities in their absence) are responsible under Directive 90/675/EEC for checking 1 per cent. of all imported meat and meat products for residues of veterinary medicines and for banned substances.

  Beef Heifers
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons there are no proposals in the CAP Agenda 2000 to pay premium on heifers bred for beef. [21199]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]The Commission's proposals for the reform of the CAP regime for beef build on existing measures for that sector. These have traditionally focused on male animals (through intervention and the Beef Special Premium) and on suckler cows. The Commission believes that, in providing additional support for suckler cows and with the introduction of a premium on dairy cows, it is proposing some support for heifer calves reared for beef.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the procedures and criteria applied by his officials when dealing with the release of puppies and kittens born in quarantine; and if he will make a statement. [21166]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]Puppies and kittens born to the quarantined mother are subject to 15 days' quarantine after separation from the mother providing she is still healthy at the time the puppies or kittens are released. The risk to puppies or kittens born to a quarantined mother is believed to be restricted to transmission of infected saliva after birth. Transmission of the rabies virus in utero is unknown, according to the scientific literature. As the rabies virus is present in the saliva for less than two weeks before clinical signs appear there is no risk to offspring if the mother is clinically healthy a fortnight after separation from the litter.

  Agrimonetary Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to submit an application to the European Union on behalf of the United Kingdom for assistance under the agrimonetary compensation scheme. [21163]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]We are considering what further action might be necessary to alleviate the position of farmers affected by currency movements and other developments affecting income.

  Offering new funds to farmers, even with reimbursement from the EU budget, carries very significant implications for UK public expenditure.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what organisations he has consulted in connection with the proposed ban on the sale of bone-in beef. [21197]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]The Department consulted over 330 organisations representing consumer, industry and farming interests. The names of the organisations concerned are included in the consultation package on the proposed legislation prohibiting the sale of bone-in beef, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he will use to judge when the ban on the sale of beef on the bone products should be lifted in the United Kingdom. [20502]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]Our priority remains consumer safety. The ban will be kept under review and any decision to lift it will be taken in the light of scientific developments and progress with the eradication of BSE.

  Bovine Bones
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which enforcement agencies will have responsibility for bovine bones in(a) butchers' shops, (b) cutting plants and (c) abattoirs. [21097]

  Mr. Rooker
  Enforcement of the new controls on bovine bones in Great Britain will be carried out as part of normal supervision and inspection of food premises, by either the Meat Hygiene Service in licensed cutting premises and abattoirs or local authorities in all other food premises.

  Live Cattle (Export)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will stop the payment of export refunds on the export of live cattle to third countries; and if he will make a statement. [20891]

  Mr. Rooker
  The United Kingdom does not pay export refunds on live cattle, because it is not currently allowed to export them. Any agreement to abolish export refunds on live cattle would have to be reached at Community level. Such agreement is unlikely. Nevertheless, thanks in large measure to UK pressure, the Agriculture Council has this week adopted a Commission proposal which will make the granting of refunds on live cattle subject to compliance with Community legislation on animal welfare and, in particular, the protection of animals during transport.

  Rural Advisory Committee
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons he appointed each of the non-farming members of the Rural Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement. [20103]

  Mr. Rooker
  All members of the Agricultural Advisory Group were chosen for the personal expertise and experience they could bring to bear on the subjects the Group would be asked to consider.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he is taking to broaden the social background from which appointments to non-departmental public bodies are made. [19611]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government are committed to attracting a broad range of applicants for public appointments—by the use of advertising and by encouraging members of under-represented groups to nominate themselves for the central and departmental lists of candidates.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about his proposals to make quangos more open and accountable. [19613]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Following the publication of the Government's consultation paper "Opening up Quangos" we have received a number of comments from a wide range of organisations and from individuals. Most of these welcome the proposals in the consultation paper and offer additional suggestions to make quangos more open and accountable.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress in reducing the number of quangos. [19618]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Ministers are taking a careful look to see which quangos are really necessary, with a view to keeping the numbers to a minimum. Ministers are also undertaking a zero-based analysis of the functions of the NDPBs they sponsor as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to make non-departmental bodies more accountable to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [19628]

  Dr. David Clark
  In our consultation paper "Opening up Quangos", published on 11 November, we set out ways of improving the accountability of quangos. I am inviting Select Committees to have greater oversight of quangos, by looking at annual reports and by being involved in the regular five-yearly reviews of quangos.

  Freedom of Information
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the principal objectives of the Government's proposals on freedom of information. [19614]

  Dr. David Clark
  The objective of our proposals on freedom of information are to encourage more open and accountable government by establishing a general statutory right of access to official records and information.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on his proposed freedom of information legislation. [19624]
  234
  Dr. David Clark
  My right hon. Friend is a member of the Cabinet Committee which discussed extensively the proposals for freedom of information legislation now set out in our White Paper "Your Right to Know".

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement regarding the release of Government papers. [19629]

  Dr. David Clark
  The White Paper on Freedom of Information, "Your Right to Know", contains proposals for a Freedom of Information Act which would incorporate access rights to both current and historic records. For the present, Government records will continue to be released in accordance with the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to promote the Government's policy on freedom of information. [19615]

  Dr. David Clark
  I look forwared to a wide-ranging public debate on the proposals set out last week in the White Paper "Your Right to Know". As well as publishing the White Paper in print and on the internet, 40,000 copies of a leaflet explaining the main proposals are being distributed. The leaflet will also be available in seven minority languages, in large print, in Braille and on audio cassette.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish his proposals for a food safety standards agency; and if he will make a statement. [19617]

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he plans to publish his White Paper on food safety; and if he will make a statement. [19623]

  Mr. David Clark
  The Government will be announcing their proposals when Parliament returns in the new year.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on his proposals for the establishment of a food safety standards agency. [19619]

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received recently concerning food safety; and if he will make a statement. [19625]

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will review the operation of the new model contract for special advisers. [19620]

  Dr. David Clark
  The new model contract for special advisers was promulgated by the Prime Minister on 19 May 1997. It is kept under review, and will be amended as and when a need is identified.
  235
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the role of special advisers with responsibilities for Government information. [19627]

  Dr. David Clark
  As I have made clear in response to questions from hon. Members, this Government have set out clearly in the model contract for special advisers the terms and conditions under which special advisers are employed. We have also published the report of the Review of the Government Information Service which clarifies the role of those special advisers with responsibility for media-related matters. Copies of both documents are in the Library.

  Public Information (Broadcasting)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what instructions are issued to the Central Office of Information on the broadcasting of public information announcements on television. [19621]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  There are no instructions issued to the Central Office of Information on the broadcasting of public information announcements on television.

  Better Government Programme
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to involve local government in the better government programme. [19622]

  Mr. David Clark
  Local government are key partners in the Better Government programme.

  As part of the Deputy Prime Minister's initiative to develop the partnership between Central and Local Government, I have set up a Working Group on Public Service Delivery, which includes representatives from the Local Government Association. The aim of the Group is to develop a framework for innovative pilots to improve services at the local level through different organisations working together.

  Service Delivery (Technology)
  Mrs. Ann Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his plans to promote public services via electronic networks. [19626]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Government intend to publish next year a White Paper on "Better Government", which will set out the way in which access to government services will be transformed using modern technology.

  On 9 December I formally launched direct.link, an electronic forum which aims to bring together public sector organisations and voluntary agencies which are actively engaged in projects to provide electronic services to the citizen.

  Direct.link is managed by the Central IT Unit (CITU) and it will conduct most of its business electronically, using discussion groups and e-mail. Direct.link will enable members to exchange ideas, share experiences and investigate topics of common interest.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that Government Departments resolve the millennium computer compliance problem. [19605]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made to the House on 27 November 1997,Official Report, columns 1104–05.

  Citizens Charter
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to reform the programme of charters. [19616]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We announced to the House on 2 July 1997,Official Report, columns 284–87, the Government's intention to relaunch the citizens charter. A consultation exercise to find out what people want from the programme ended on 21 November. We have received responses from a wide variety of sources, including consumer representative organisations; professional institutions; hospitals; local authorities; academics; and individual members of the public.

  These responses will help shape the new programme, details of which will be published early next year as part of the Better Government initiative.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, 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. [15868]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]: Preparatory work is required to confirm that all security concerns have been addressed and that listed Ministers, Senior Officials and Agency Chief executives have systems/procedures in place to handle external E-Mail traffic.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 27 November 1997,Official Report, column 664, for how many of the 433 lone parents referred to in Table 1 of her Department's publication "A New Deal for Lone Parents: Moving Forward-Progress Report on the First Three Months" reported as having obtained work she has information in the form set out in Table 2 of that report; and if she will publish such information as she has in that form. [18886]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]Information on the age, number of children, wage, previous duration on benefit, type of work and area is available for 409 of the 864 lone parents who have moved into work under the New Deal for Lone Parents up to the end of November. This information has been placed in the Library.
  237
  The Government do not routinely collect data on in-work costs for lone parents moving into work under the New Deal. This information will instead be assessed during the separate research commissioned for the New Deal. The research data will be released when the research is complete.

  The eight estimates of financial gain from moving into work provided in the report "Moving Forward" were provided to illustrate the effects on individuals before in-work costs. These data are not, though, sufficiently robust for analysis of the impact of the New Deal.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made, and on the basis of what sources of information, of the difference in incomes between lone parents on income support and those in work(a) before and (b) after child care costs are taken into account. [19703]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Estimates by the independent Policy Studies Institute indicate that the weekly income for lone parents already in work and receiving Family Credit is likely to be, on average, over £50 more than their estimated income on Income Support.

  This estimate is based on a 1994 sample of lone parents in work, adjusted by the Policy Studies Institute to take account of two subsequent policy changes (the introduction of the childcare disregard in all in-work benefits in October 1994 and the introduction of a 30 hour credit in Family Credit in July 1995) and the annual uprating of benefit levels. It does not take account of changes announced in June 1997 to extend the child care disregard further.

  The £50 per week estimate is before in-work costs which, excluding child care costs, averaged £5 per week; 79 per cent. were not paying for child care.

  Some 21 per cent. of the sample were paying for child care. After allowing for in-work costs, including the costs of child care, this group is on average over £18 per week better off in work than on Income Support. These figures are, however, based on a small sample and should be treated with caution.

  Direct comparisons between out of work income and in-work income for those lone parents currently receiving Income Support are difficult. It is not straightforward to predict the earnings of those lone parents who move into work since this would depend on the type of job they might get, and for how many hours. In addition, it is not possible to predict what child care costs they might have.

  In order to ensure that more lone parents are better off financially in work, the Government will implement a National Minimum Wage and National Child Care Strategy, reforming the tax and benefit systems, and provide extra help with the cost of child care and access to lifetime learning.

  It is important to recognise, though, that the financial return from working is not the only consideration which lone parents make in deciding to work. Qualitative research indicates that some lone parents choose to work in part to provide a role model for their children, and to take them away from dependency on benefit.
  238
  The New Deal for Lone Parents will provide practical help and advice for the lone parents on Income Support who want to move into work. As part of the New Deal service, lone parents who have been offered work, and have been advised of their earnings, can ask their Personal Adviser for an estimate of their likely entitlement to Family Credit and other in-work benefits. The evaluation of the programme includes a quantitative survey of a sample of participants in all eight areas of the scheme which will collect systematic information from lone parents on how much actually better off they are in work.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average income of a lone parent on
  (i) family credit and (ii) income support(a) in rented accommodation and (b) with a mortgage. [20548]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]The information is set out in the table.

  £ per week

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  Families on family credit in rented accommodation

  197

  198

  155

  155

  Families on family credit with a mortgage

  202

  204

  171

  167

  Families on income support in rented accommodation

  184

  166

  135

  116

  Families on income support with a mortgage

  177

  166

  127

  112

  Source

  Households Below Average Income (HBAI).

  Notes

  1. Figures are for 1995–96.

  2. The data come from the Department's Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series, based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and covering Great Britain. The FRS data were used to achieve a large enough sample size to provide more robust information. All results are subject to sampling error.

  3. Both mean and median figures are given. This is because mean results may be affected by atypical households skewing the results.

  4. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income. The definition of income used follows that in the published HBAI series for FRS based results and therefore takes no account of child care costs; figures are given both before and after housing costs in line with usual HBAI practice. Families are counted as "with a mortgage" if the household they live in has a mortgage.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Child Support Agency is permitted to make inquiries of the Inland Revenue in respect of the financial income in cases involving absent parents. [20079]

  Mr. Field
  The Child Support Agency can obtain the address of the absent parent and details of his employer from the Inland Revenue for tracing purposes. However, under current legislation, financial details cannot be obtained. We are determined to ensure that the Child Support Agency provides an efficient and effective service and are looking at all aspects of its work to see where improvements can be made. We aim to bring forward proposals in the first half of next year.
  239
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents are currently paying the minimum amount of child maintenance, as stipulated by the CSA, whilst they are receiving statutory(a) sick pay and (b) incapacity benefit. [20120]

  Mr. Field
  Absent parents receiving Statutory Sick Pay or Incapacity Benefit who are assessed to pay the minimum amount or less are exempt from payment.

  Data from August 1997 show a small number of these cases with an assessment for the minimum amount. These will be cases where the absent parent has only recently started to receive statutory sick pay or incapacity benefit but the assessment has not yet been revised, and cases where payment of those benefits has ceased but the records have not yet been fully updated.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the guidance given to the Benefits Agency in assessing the capacity for work for persons suffering from ME and similar diseases. [20140]

  Mr. Field
  Detailed guidance on the approach to assessing people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (commonly referred to as ME) and similar conditions where variability of severity of symptoms is a feature, is provided in the Incapacity Benefit Handbook issued to all Benefits Agency Medical Services doctors. The doctors are trained to take an overall view of someone's capacity for work taking into account the degree to which their conditions vary and the effects of pain and fatigue.

  We are looking at all aspects of provision for sick and disabled people as a part of our comprehensive spending review. During the review we shall take care to think about the particular needs of different groups and to assess whether the benefit system is addressing these in the right way.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to improve incentives to work for disabled people. [21005]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age, and are committed to improving opportunities and incentives for disabled people who want to work. Under our New Deal for people with a disability or long-term illness, up to £195 million, set aside from the Windfall Tax, will be used to finance a range of options aimed at helping participants, in the most effective way possible, to move into or stay in work. One key element of the New Deal will involve funding a number of innovative schemes to test ways of helping people who want to work, and the bidding process for this part of the programme was 240
  launched on 9 December. In parallel with these initiatives we are also considering what changes might be made to the benefit system to improve incentives and reduce disincentives to work.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people have(a) applied for and (b) been awarded invalid care allowance in each of the last three years;[20672]

  (2) how many people currently claim invalid care allowance. [20676]

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

  Number of claims to invalid care allowance and awards made' thousands Claims receivedAwards made1

  thousands

  Claims received

  Awards made

  1994

  123

  94

  1995

  152

  104

  1996

  165

  116

  Notes

  1. The figures are derived from separate counts. The number of awards made in any year is not necessarily the result of claims received in that year. There will be some awards made on claims made in the preceding year, and some claims received that are not awarded until the following year.

  2. As at 1 October 1997, there were 371,000 Invalid Care Allowances currently in payment.

  Source

  Figures based on a 100 per cent. count of Invalid Care Allowance claims, awards and allowances in Great Britain.

  Women Claimants
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of couples were in receipt of income support or income related jobseeker's allowance in which the woman is the claimant, for each year since 1990. [20678]

  Mr. Field
  The information is set out in the table:

  Claimants of income support/income based jobseeker's allowance where the women heads the unit 1990–97

  All couples

  Couples headed by a woman

  Number

  As a percentage of all couples

  May 1990

  691,000

  35,000

  5

  May 1991

  763,000

  37,000

  5

  May 1992

  891,000

  48,000

  5

  May 1993

  1,016,000

  63,000

  6

  May 1994

  992,000

  75,000

  8

  May 1995

  946,000

  85,000

  9

  May 1996

  915,000

  91,000

  10

  February 1997

  855,000

  91,000

  11

  Notes

  1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Income based jobseeker's allowance replaced income support for the unemployed from October 1996.

  3. Sample size 1 per cent. up to 1992, 5 per cent. thereafter.

  Sources

  1. Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries, 1990–93.

  2. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1994—February 1997.

  3. Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, February 1997.

  Carer Benefits
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits are available to those who care for others. [20675]

  Mr. Denham
  Carers have access to the full range of Social Security benefits depending on their individual circumstances. Invalid Care Allowance is the benefit intended specifically for carers. Carers may also qualify for the carer premium within the income related benefits.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) earners and (ii) benefit recipients in couples in receipt of family credit at the latest date for which information is available. [20670]

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

  Couples receiving family credit, by gender of main or subsequent earner, May 1997

  Gender of main earner

  Main earner

  With Partner earnings

  Without earnings

  Male

  308,000

  20,000

  288,000

  Female

  98,000

  11,000

  87,000

  All cases

  406,000

  31,000

  375,000

  Source

  Family credit 5 per cent. sample of all awards.

  Notes

  1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures are based on the gender of the main earner and their partner.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale were in receipt of family credit in each year since 1992. [19694]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of Family Credit is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 16 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale were in receipt of Family Credit (FC) during each year since 1992.
  The information is not available in the format requested. FC is administered centrally by the Family Credit Unit. Statistics are produced on a national basis and provide the number of families in receipt of FC within a particular Benefits Agency (BA) local office area at a given date. This only serves as a "snap-shot" of the position at that date and does not indicate the number of families in receipt of FC annually.
  242
  Information on FC claims is normally destroyed after 18 months. However, the information requested is currently available from 1993 onwards and the figures for the two BA local offices within this area are as follows:

  April

  Burnley

  Rossendale

  1993

  2,933

  782

  1994

  3,393

  864

  1995

  3,936

  910

  1996

  4,171

  800

  1997

  4,575

  665

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the entitlement to benefits of those who agree to participate in Welfare to Work for long term sick and disabled schemes. [17724]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]The Government strongly believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age, and have set aside £195 million to fund a programme improving opportunities for sick and disabled people who want to work. We are currently consulting representatives from a number of disability organisations and employers on our initial proposals. These include funding a number of innovative schemes to explore how best to help people move into work or stay in work; introducing personal advisers to help sick and disabled people to overcome barriers to work; an information campaign to improve knowledge of the existing help available to help people into work and to change attitudes of benefit recipients, employers and the public; and a programme of research and evaluation to develop our understanding of the client group and to determine the effect of our initiatives. Participation in the welfare to work programme will be voluntary.

  In addition we are examining the effect of benefit rules on incentives for sick and disabled people who want to work as part of our comprehensive spending review, and are considering the need for any changes. We are particularly keen that benefit rules should not discourage participation in the Welfare to Work programme.

  We are committed to looking at ways of ending the exclusion of disabled people, and empowering them to play a full role in society. We want to develop an approach which focuses on people's abilities, instead of their disabilities.

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action is being taken to reduce the waiting times for appeals heard by the Independent Tribunal Service. [20746]

  Mr. Field
  The operation of the appeals system is a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service.

  However, we are determined to reduce the current delays and complexity in the appeals system. The Social Security Bill, which paves the way for modernising the delivery of social security, including the handling of appeals, had its third reading in the House on

  243
  10 December and is now continuing its passage through the House of Lords. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will assume responsibility for the administration of the appeals system. She will set and publish demanding targets for the administration of appeals and report on the results.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if recipients of disability living allowance who receive a questionnaire under the Benefits Integrity Programme are entitled to see a copy of their initial claim form; and what publicity his Department provides in respect of these arrangements. [20822]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. We need to focus on those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have set up the Benefit Integrity Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 16 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking whether recipients of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) who receive a questionnaire under the Benefits Integrity Programme are entitled to see a copy of their initial claim form; and what publicity his Department provides in respect of these arrangements.
  The Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) was set up in response to the recent Benefit Review of DLA. Over the next two years, specially trained staff will make enquiries by postal questionnaire or home visit in over 400,000 cases to establish whether DLA is being paid correctly.
  244
  A copy of the original form will be sent to DLA recipients on request. We have had several useful meetings with organisations representing disabled people at which this provision was emphasised, as it was on the Does He Take Sugar? radio broadcast made by the Baroness Hollis of Heigham.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of housing benefit claimants for the benefit areas covering (1) Regent's Park and (2) Kensington North; how many of the claimants are(a) local authority, (b) housing association and (c) private tenants; and if he will list the (i) highest, (ii) average, (iii) median and (iv) upper and lower quartile payment figures for (a) to (c). [20975]

  Mr. Field
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  The information relates to the London Boroughs of Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea.

  Caseloads and weekly average amounts of housing benefit at the end of May 1997

  Local authority tenants

  Private tenants (excluding Housing association tenants tenants)

  Housing Authority association

  Westminster

  Recipients

  9,960

  7,440

  5,980

  Average housing benefit

  £59.09

  £106.85

  £61.62

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Recipients

  5,720

  4,620

  6,670

  Average housing benefit

  £64.86

  £106.53

  £58.56

  Source

  Housing Benefit Management Information System.

  Notes

  1. Recipients may be a single person or a couple.

  2. Westminster's figures are estimated based on actuals for November 1996.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,
Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act,
Supreme Court (Offices) Act,
Scottish Agricultural College Order Confirmation Act.

Student Loans
Lord Tope Lord Tope asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether students will be in receipt of loans before they are asked to pay tuition fees in the academic year beginning in October 1998.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, student loans are intended to help students meet their living costs, and not their tuition fees. In 1998–99 eligible students will be able to apply for loans from the first day they attend their course. The Student Loans Company pays over 99 per cent. of loans within 21 days of receiving an application form.
The amount which students and their families are expected to contribute towards tuition fees will be income-related. Where the assessed contribution is less than £1,000 the balance will be paid direct to the student's university or college by his or her local education authority.
Where the local authority is not meeting the full fee, the student or his or her parents or spouse will be expected to meet the balance. Additional loans for living costs are being provided so that the total contribution expected towards fees and living costs will not be any higher in real terms than the current contribution towards living costs. We have asked universities and colleges to be sensitive in collecting fees—for example, by allowing students to pay in instalments.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I am of course aware of the purpose of student loans. Is the Minister aware that there is widespread anxiety among many students that they will need a loan in order to pay the tuition fees, either because of some parental inability or unwillingness to do so or some other delay? What steps will the
618
Minister's department be able to take to reassure students who are anxious about the position they will face next autumn?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. We are aware that there is anxiety. However, we feel that it is misplaced, since no parents will have to pay any more in combined maintenance support and tuition fees than they pay at present. We expect those parents who can afford to pay to do so, just as under the existing scheme we expect parents to maintain their children who are at university when they can afford to do so.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords. what provision is the department making for those students who apply and whose parents refuse to help them?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat what I have just said. We expect parents who can afford to contribute towards the tuition costs of their children at university to do so, just as at present we expect them to contribute towards maintenance costs. No parents will have to pay any more than they do under the present scheme. We believe that it is right that parents should take their parental responsibilities seriously and support their children in higher education.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she has not answered the question put to her by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor? It is a very serious point. Unfortunately, some parents regard an 18 year-old as an adult and are not prepared to pay further contributions towards his or her education. That is not a view that I accept, but it is a fact of life. The noble Baroness has outlined very complicated arrangements. This is a very serious matter for students applying to university; it would be helpful if she would explain in more detail exactly what is to happen.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I took some time in my initial response to set out what will happen. I am trying to be as helpful as I can by explaining it in some detail, since I am perfectly aware that the matter is quite complex and there is some misunderstanding. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness—I am sure that she will remember this—that, under the Government in which she served as a Minister in the Department of Education and Science, as it then was, she expected parents to contribute to the maintenance of their children at university. We expect exactly the same. If parents refuse to contribute, their children will have to take out a loan through the banks, just as they do at present. The point I am trying to get across is that no parent will have to pay any more than under the existing scheme, so there should not be more parents who are not contributing. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in her Answer my noble friend explained that contributions will be

619
income related. Will she explain to the House what assessment will be made of income, and in what sense contributions will be related to that income?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, exactly the same scheme will be in place for the assessment of income as is currently in place. There will be no changes to that.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I wish to ask a simple question. Are the Government, and is the Minister, satisfied with a policy which is intended to increase student numbers but which results in falling applications, particularly from poorer families nationwide, to many universities? Is the Minister satisfied that the policy will enable poorer children to go to university without restriction?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. There is no evidence that young people from low income homes will not continue to apply for university places. We are making the new tuition fee means-tested; it is income-contingent. So 30 per cent. of young people from lower income homes will not pay the fee and another 30 per cent. will only have to make a contribution towards the fee.
We feel that it is right that we should all ensure that young people from backgrounds where there is no tradition of going to university or where the income is low have the means not to be in any way affected by the tuition fee.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the Minister acknowledged that there is widespread anxiety, even though she feels that it is misplaced. I ask her again what steps she or her department intend to take to reassure students, to convince them, their parents and others that the anxiety is misplaced, if it is.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have already issued literally thousands of leaflets which have gone to all potential university students in schools and colleges, all second year A-level students. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also sent a letter to all those students explaining the system and, I hope, dealing with misplaced fears about it. We have advertised on radio, but not on television; we have a hotline to the Department for Education and Employment; and we have received over 20,000 telephone calls on that hotline, for which we provided information. In addition, the CVCP and SCOP have provided further advice, as has UCAS.

Head Teachers: Professional Qualification
2.44 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the arrangements being made for the national professional qualification for headship.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, good leadership is essential to school success and our head teachers are
620
at the heart of delivering this Government's agenda for raising standards. We welcome the work done by the Teacher Training Agency in developing the national professional qualification for headship. Last Thursday I placed on the record that, subject to further development and continued positive feedback from the pilot, we expect the NPQH to be the required qualification for all first-time heads under the provisions in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill now before your Lordships' House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the quality of a head teacher is crucial to the success of a school? Can she therefore say in general terms what the training will cover? Will it include an assessment of personal qualities—although I accept that that can be a difficult task—the principles of management and a comprehensive knowledge of education administration? Will the scheme include provision for supply cover for any teachers who go on to head teacher training courses?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may start with the last point raised by my noble friend. We are currently considering the rules covering standards fund expenditure and reviewing the maximum of 20 per cent. of central funding that may at present be used for supply cover.
As regards the nature of the course, a great deal of it will be school-based, so that teachers who wish to obtain training for headship will not have to be released from their schools, apart from for the occasional day. There will be training on Saturdays and in school holidays.
All those who become candidates for the training will go through an initial needs assessment to look at which modules they will need to complete and to assess what kind of training they have already done. It will cover all the points which my noble friend raised, as well as something called "strategic accountability".
Lord Quirk: My Lords, has the Minister become aware of rumours that primary teachers will not get such easy access to headship training as teachers in secondary schools? If that is correct, could she ensure that primary teachers, who most certainly will be needed for headships, get every encouragement to go forward for training?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, raised an important issue. There are far more primary schools than secondary schools; therefore there are far more primary heads than secondary heads. It is absolutely vital that they should have equal access to training for headships. Because of the Government's new agenda for school standards, we are giving top priority to achieving our targets for literacy and numeracy in primary schools, so we need very well-trained primary heads. However, I shall ensure that

621
the noble Lord's concern is drawn to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for school standards. I have not heard the rumours.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, is the Minister able to say whether the national professional qualification includes any educational training in the area of spiritual and moral development?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I understand it, this is a training in management, administration and leadership rather than in those areas which specifically relate to curriculum matters. I am not aware that there is a specific module for the area, but I shall take the right reverend Prelate's concern back and find out whether any consideration is being given to it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think the point the Minister made was that it would be obligatory for those wishing to be head teachers to go on the course. Perhaps she will confirm that. If that is the case, how will it be possible to determine who will go on it? There are the many teachers in primary schools referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and unless there are many places, they will not get on a course for a long time.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have no intention of making the course mandatory in the first instance. We shall be building it up over several years to avoid just the kind of problem to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred. Eventually we want it to be a mandatory qualification so that all head teachers are well prepared for the enormously challenging and difficult tasks that they face in our schools.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will those who are appointed as assessors possess adequate substantial, successful and relevant teaching experience?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. My noble friend raises an important question. A number of those who will be involved in providing the training will be high quality, successful, serving head teachers. Some of them will be LEA trainers and will have a great deal of experience in training people in local education authorities. But it is vital that those who are involved in what is sometimes called "teaching the teachers" are of good quality and have the relevant experience.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister state the Government's attitude to the cardinal principle raised by the right reverend Prelate?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But I can say without difficulty that the Government are absolutely committed to that aspect of the curriculum and believe
622
that all young people should be exposed to moral, social and spiritual training or education within their school experience.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us any more about "strategic responsibility"? For instance, how does that compare with tactical responsibility in a head teacher?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I did not quite pick up my noble friend's comparison with what is defined in the new training as "strategic accountability". It is important that head teachers are accountable to their governing bodies and to the mission and strategy that their governing bodies set down for their schools. It is important that they have a broad sense of the objectives that they seek to achieve.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness feels, as I do, that she has had some valuable contributions from her noble friends as well as my noble friends. In view of her answers, is she prepared to put more flesh on the skeletal Bill that she presented to the House so that we can consider the details of the head teachers' course rather than the vague recommendations contained in the Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is not appropriate, after 16 minutes of Starred Questions, for me to go into great detail about the Bill. That is difficult to do. However, later we will do our best to do so.
Lord Howell: My Lords, recognising the need for the management of a curriculum in most of our schools, and bearing in mind the importance of literacy and numeracy, will this course also have regard to the fact that some subjects which ought to be included, such as physical education, are not now finding their rightful place? Will this course ensure that they do?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, once again I should say that this is a course to prepare head teachers for their leadership responsibilities. Part of that responsibility is to make absolutely sure that the national curriculum, and other parts of the curriculum that are regarded as essential to the successful education of young people, are properly covered in their schools.

EU Financial Management: Scrutiny
2.54 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will recommend to the Council of Ministers concerning the Court of Auditors' refusal to provide a positive global assurance as to the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the payments out of European Community funds for the year ended 31st December 1996.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, improving financial management of the Community budget is a

623
priority area for the Government, as we made clear in our manifesto. The European Court of Auditors' report is a powerful tool in the fight to improve financial management and reduce fraud. The Government will use the opportunities which the UK presidency of the European Union will provide to carry forward this agenda. In particular, the Government will preside over the annual budget discharge procedure. That will give us the opportunity to ensure that discussion of the report in Council focuses on key issues and on achieving real improvements. In addition, the Government will continue to support the Commission's SEM (sound and efficient management) 2000 initiative on improving financial management. This has already produced a real output in the form of clarifications of what constitutes eligible expenditure.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that Article 188c of the Maastricht Treaty gave the Court of Auditors responsibility for the first time to report, among other things, on the legality and propriety of various items of expenditure in the Community budget. For the past two years—the coming year will be the third year—the Court of Auditors declined to provide that certificate, even though the original requirement for its provision was claimed as being part of the game, set and match win we achieved in Maastricht.
What are the Government going to do about that? The amount at issue is estimated by the Court of Auditors to be £2.81 billion—I repeat, "billion"—of which the United Kingdom's share would be £340 million. That is not peanuts. There is no point in the Government expostulating about this. What are they going to do about it? We are a member of the European Council which is a superior body to the Council of Ministers and can in fact do what it wishes. What is the noble Lord going to do?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in The Hunting of the Snark the Bellman had the principle that,
"What I tell you three times is true".
When my noble friend asks me the same question three times, it does not make it any more relevant and does not disqualify what I have already said. Not only Members of your Lordships' House but every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows that Article 188c of the Maastricht Treaty has the effect described by my noble friend.
I described in my original Answer the action which the Government intend to take in their role as UK president. That relates not only to fraud, which is one part of the problems which the Court of Auditors identified, but also to the other substantive errors which usually refer to differences of opinion between the Court and the Commission in relation to the interpretation of the rules on eligibility. Both of those issues will be attacked vigorously during the UK presidency. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has already visited
624
the Court of Auditors to discuss what we are going to do. As far as I am aware, that is the first time in living memory that that has happened.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his desire to eliminate fraud in European Union affairs. He asks what should be done. Would not the better and more effective answer be to give greater power to the various authorities within the European Union to make it more of a federal authority dealing with these matters over and above the national governments which conceal many of the frauds?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an invitation to a much wider debate than I am prepared to undertake today. A large part of the 5.4 per cent.—£3 billion—to which my noble friend referred relates to failings in administration of the common agricultural policy. It is that in particular with which we are keen to deal. That is what the Agenda 2000 programme, which we shall be vigorously supporting, aims to attack.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a federal organisation would not make things better? It would make them worse because they would be far more difficult to control. Is he also aware that I am extremely encouraged by what he said in regard to the Government's attitude towards fraud. After all, we are the second largest contributor. Can he say what the Government will do to make sure that the Mafia does not move further into the financial affairs of the EC, particularly in relation to the common agricultural policy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was right, I think, to refuse to go into the issue of a federal Europe in response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. As far as concerns the Mafia, I assume that my noble friend is referring to criminal elements more widely. A great change is taking place in the common agricultural policy. There is less reliance now on support for goods in transit and on export refunds, and more reliance, quite properly, on payments directly to farms. That means that some of the areas where criminal elements had an opportunity to pillage the common agricultural funds no longer exist.

Terrorism
3 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What organisations and individuals based in the United Kingdom are known to be funding or otherwise aiding terrorism outside the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it would not be prudent to make specific allegations against individuals or organisations before there is

625
sufficient evidence to set in hand a criminal prosecution, deportation or exclusion. Countering the activities of those who may be seeking to assist terrorism outside the United Kingdom is a high priority for the police and the Security Service. Any credible information or intelligence is investigated. If this yields evidence that organisations or individuals are supporting terrorism, action is taken under the criminal law or under Immigration Act powers.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I recognise the sensitivity. However, this matter reflects badly on the United Kingdom. How extensive is the problem? Can the Minister say how many allegations have been received by his department or specialist agencies so far this year? Will the Government draw up a list of deemed terrorist organisations; and if so, how would inclusion be determined?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I absolutely reject the contention that anything to do with the fight against international terrorism reflects badly on this Government. The Home Secretary made an announcement in October that a consultation paper is being put out to deal with international terrorism. We are carefully considering the recommendations made in the most helpful report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd; and we propose to introduce anti-terrorism legislation. There is some virtue in having a list. The United States has a list. There are some deficiencies in that approach because as soon as one lists or denominates certain organisations, they re-form—sometimes under different names. That is something we are considering. It cannot be in doubt that the Government are determined, as were their predecessor, to fight international terrorism.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that certain governments—particularly the Egyptian Government—have made specific allegations about named individuals in this country who they claim are actively promoting terrorism of the type which concluded with the massacre of tourists in Luxor? Has he received any such representations, some of them in public?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, representations are made at different levels to Her Majesty's Government. If those representations are made, the law must take its course, as with all other allegations of criminal conduct. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, either the criminal law is engaged or the Home Secretary uses his powers of deportation or exclusion. That is the proper way to deal with these matters.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that there is anxiety about this matter. We certainly look forward to seeing the White Paper when it is published. As the nature of terrorism has certainly changed during the past 20 or 30 years, will he also look at our international obligations and
626
whether the laws in a number of countries can be harmonised a little, as indeed was the case a few years ago when hijacking was at its height and we harmonised practice between the G7 countries? Can the White Paper consider that aspect of the matter?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is something we are presently considering and comes from a particularly informed source. What we are doing—as the Home Secretary said in the Statement which I repeated to your Lordships' House—is looking at our present anti-terrorism legislation. It is piecemeal. One of its deficiencies is that it is focused too closely on the threat from Irish terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, rightly says that terrorism changes. International crime changes. We are determined to co-operate with our international partners in this fight, which is of interest to all civilised regimes.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that complaints have been made by embassies and high commissions regarding the diversion of moneys collected ostensibly for charitable purposes to the acquisition of weapons by terrorists abroad? Notwithstanding the fact that the Charity Commissioners have powers to investigate the diversion of funds for unlawful purposes overseas, does he not agree that those have been very sparingly used and that his department might encourage the Charity Commissioners to expand their efforts in this direction?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that indication will be transmitted. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that the question of fundraising, under whatever umbrella, for acts of terrorism anywhere in the world is a matter specifically addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in paragraph 13.30 of his excellent report. It is something the Home Secretary is presently considering.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the problems here comes from people who abuse our asylum-seeking system? They get asylum here and then promptly use the hospitality of this country to direct terrorism via e-mail and so on back to their home countries. If the Minister is saying that the Government are looking to tighten up the procedures and rules surrounding the granting of asylum to people like that, I assure him that he will have the support of this side of the House in contrast to the lack of support we had when we were in government from the then Opposition.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what a shame! I was just about to commend the noble Lord for his statesmanlike approach. And then he went and spoilt it! The Home Secretary has made it plain that we intend to bring forward legislation to make it unlawful to conspire

627
in the United Kingdom to commit terrorist acts abroad. That remains the proper policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Welfare of Pigs (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the health and welfare of pigs. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Ceremony of Introduction: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Berkeley

L. Denham,

L. Elis-Thomas,

B. Hamwee,

B. Lockwood,

L. Marsh (Chairman),

B. Wilcox;

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out; and
That the committee do meet on Tuesday 13th January at a quarter-past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the third report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion, I draw attention to paragraph 3 of the report: the use of House of Lords' crested stationery. Noble Lords are entitled to use this stationery free of charge. However, as it comes at not inconsiderable cost to your Lordships' House, and so to the taxpayer, guidelines were drawn up in 1993 to encourage Peers to use
628
stationery sparingly. Those are set out in paragraph 3. Recently, the amount of this stationery supplied to Peers has been increasing at a notable rate, and the practice of using crested paper and envelopes for rough notes and speeches has become widespread. So I urge Members to bear in mind the expense of providing this paper and encourage noble Lords to restrict their use of it to the more formal purposes mentioned.
Moved, That the third report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 49).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Sub-Committee membership
Lord Burnham was appointed to the Refreshment Sub-Committee in the place of Lord Chesham.
2. Seating in the Chamber
The Committee agreed, for a trial period, that the Hansard reporters should be moved to the Peers' Married Daughters' Box to allow extra space to be created for disabled Peers. This arrangement will be reviewed before the 1998 summer recess.
3. Use of Stationery
The Committee draws the attention of the House to the following guidelines for the use of House of Lords' stationery which were agreed in 1993:

"House of Lords' stationery may be used for all correspondence relating to the work of the House, including the work of all-party committees;

House of Lords' stationery may be used for personal correspondence in modest quantities, but should not be used for circulars, correspondence of organisations (except those of an essentially parliamentary nature) or business letters."

The Committee also reminds Lords that red crested House of Lords' stationery should be used only for correspondence and not for speeches or rough notes, for which a range of other paper of lesser quality is available.
4. Palace of Westminster fire compartmentation
The Committee approved as part of the fire compartmentation programme a proposal to install near the top of the Peers' Staircase a door similar to those at the beginning of the West Front corridor and next to the Clerk of the Parliaments' Office.
5. Mail Service
The Committee agreed that from 1st January all unstamped mail left with the Attendants for posting, other than to destinations within the Parliamentary Estate or served by the Interdepartmental Despatch Service (IDS), should not he franked. In cases where the sender can be identified the letter will be returned to them; if the sender cannot be identified the letter will be placed in an open box in a prominent position in the Attendants' Mail Room in the Peers' Lobby.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may use this occasion to ask the Chairman of Committees whether something could be done to improve the quality of the gum on the envelopes.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Chairman of Committees for introducing the report. With reference to paragraph 2, I think we all accept that it will be a useful experiment to relocate the Hansard reporters to the Peers' Married Daughters' Box. That will provide extra accommodation for wheelchairs, which we all agree is very important. Can the Chairman of

629
Committees advise us where the Peers' married daughters will be seated should they wish to attend and listen to your Lordships' debates?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees aware that unmarked paper is no longer available? Many people would look for it and use it if it were there.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps I may first try to deal with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about gum on envelopes. Not for the first time for someone appearing at the Dispatch Box, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asks a very sticky question.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the advantage of it is that the noble Lord proposes to use envelopes not for notes, but in the way in which they should be used. On that point I commend him most warmly. I do not know what can be done about it, but I shall certainly look into it and see whether I can seal the matter on his behalf. I have noticed that elsewhere some envelopes have a very pleasant taste. The noble Lord might feel that that is an aspect which could be beneficially looked into as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked about the temporary relocation of the Hansard reporters in the Peers' Married Daughters' Box. I stress that this is for an experimental period only in the first place, subject to review later on in the Session. While the Hansard reporters are occupying that place, Peers' married daughters will be accommodated in the area below Bar which is occupied by Peeresses or the spouses of noble Lords. Should there be any occasion when that area was completely full, then they would be located upstairs. But there is no doubt at all that a place will be found for any who require it.
As regards the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, I am told that rough paper is available. There is lined and unlined paper available and also continuation sheets. Although it is of the same quality as the crested paper, it is considerably less expensive than the printed paper. I can see the noble Lord shaking his head. He has much more doubt about the availability than I am given to understand exists. I shall certainly look into the matter and if there is a need to take action, I shall see that it is taken urgently.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rented Housing
3.13 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to call attention to the case for more rented housing in both the public and private sectors; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, people may ask why I have decided to opt for a debate on housing. I believe that it is two years since we had a debate of any
630
substance on housing. On that occasion I initiated the debate and our chief spokesman on the environment at that time, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, replied.
I ask noble Lords to look at an article by Mr. Stewart Fleming which appears in the New Statesman this week. The article begins on page 30. The headline encapsulates the subject. It says,
"Will anyone talk about housing"
It is a subject that used to beguile politicians, but it has now dropped from view. That is because it is a problem which governments no longer know how to tackle. I would insert another word and say of the previous government that they did not want to tackle it, as is shown by the wreckage that they left after 18 years.
When I set out on a political career some 40 years ago, I had to choose what my interests would be. I chose housing and health as two subjects which mattered vitally to ordinary people. Health and education now have centre stage, and I do not quarrel with that. I have never been particularly involved with education. But unless we do something about housing, and the deterioration continues, there will be enormous pressures on the health service. When one considers the large areas where there is above average sickness and deprivation of any kind, they can be found in the poorer areas where the worst housing exists. Any statistics will show that.
One of the reasons why I have tabled this Motion is that we have had a new government for six months. They have taken some forward steps in housing, but I do not believe that people are aware of the enormity of the task before us. At the time of Faith in the City and the Duke of Edinburgh's report, about 15 years ago, people were coming forward with suggestions. In order to deal with the deteriorating situation that existed we needed 100,000 new completions a year. In fact, I believe we have topped 50,000 houses on only one or two occasions. If the last Government had carried on building houses and flats at the rate that they were built by the Labour Government under the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, as he now is, there would have been available today in the housing stock over 2 million more properties to let. That is the sum of the disaster that the previous government inflicted on us.
Not only that, but they insisted on the mandatory selling of council houses in areas where housing was in great need. I took the view then, and I still take it, that the decisions for the respective areas should have been left to the local authorities. I was the chairman for housing in Manchester when we had a waiting list of 30,000. We started to reduce it. But now I find that the waiting list is back to that figure. That is disappointing for those people who have followed the subject of housing all their lives.
I spoke this morning to the former Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. John Glimmer. He commissioned a report which, I believe, was produced earlier this year. The report was prepared by bona fide people with the necessary credentials. The conclusion of the report was that for the 20-plus years from 1996 to 2016 it was envisaged that 4.4 million new lets would

631
have to be made available. That was looking into the crystal ball a little and foreseeing some of the future circumstances. I said, "That seems an awful lot, John". He said, "I can assure you that the conclusion errs on the conservative side and it is the minimum". That is 4.4 million houses by the year 2016.
It would take more than 100 years to reach that target of 4.4 million houses with the building programme achieved last year under the previous government. When I used to raise this matter at the Dispatch Box and ask why the Government behaved in such a manner, and why they were stopping councils building council houses, the Government said that they did not want to build them. Our new weapon was the Housing Corporation. That was a reference to my noble friend who has just taken over the chairmanship. I wish her every success because I believe the right type of person has been chosen for it. The Housing Corporation continually laboured the fact that its target was 60,000 houses a year—but it has never reached that target. I do not blame the Housing Corporation but the fact that the resources were not made available. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the most it ever achieved was 50,000 a year.
But what happened then? The Government cut their subsidy to the Housing Corporation from nearly £3 billion to £1 billion. If we are not careful, it will soon be down to zero. I suspect that the corporation is in serious trouble. How can one have an expanding, forward-looking building programme and let contracts so that they are beneficial in terms of price, if one is faced with such savage cuts? That aspect also needs further consideration.
I think that this Government—I support them wholeheartedly—have to start thinking about finding some money. They may say that the money is not there, but I advise them that if some money is not found and they start on the job the final cost will be absolutely appalling.
What can we do now? The first thing that I would do would be to look at the existing public sector housing stock. It is deteriorating at an alarmingly fast rate. As the money becomes available— the Government must make it available—I would use those initial resources to bring our estates up to standard, and in the same areas I would fund the local authorities to provide community buildings. As a former chairman of housing in Manchester, I know why we have some "deserts" there: it is because we were not allowed the money to develop community and social facilities in the area while we were building housing. All that we were allowed to do was build a huge number of houses, but nothing to go with them. Trouble has now overtaken us. So, that is one of the first things that I would do.
I turn now to a situation which has not been in the news lately, but the last time that I considered this—a few weeks ago—I was disappointed to note that about 600 families are still losing their home each month because of mortgage arrears. Where are those 600 families a month to be housed? They will not buy another house. Once your home has been repossessed
632
and you have been tipped out on to the street or have left of your own accord, pushing the keys through the letterbox, you cannot possibly buy another house or obtain another mortgage. What will happen to those people? Unless something is done, we will be deluged by the effects of this problem.
The Government should do something else quickly. One of the last Bills on which I worked at the Dispatch Box (with, I think, my noble friend Lord Williams) involved me complaining bitterly about the attitude of the then government, who imposed a ring fence on the housing revenue account. I pointed out that that meant that if I lived in a council house and paid my rent regularly but the fellow next door did not pay his rent, I would have to make up the deficit in the housing revenue account. I said at the time that that was a most disgraceful attack on respectable people and good tenants. However, the provisions went through. I believe that it is the job of this Government to take such provisions off the statute book as quickly as possible so that we can give honest people a chance.
I know that for quite some time local authorities have not been able to build many houses. Indeed, I believe that they built only 800 in the whole of England last year, yet we have waiting lists of over 30,000. That is the achievement of the last government. Was it intentional? If so, it was downright vicious. Indeed, if it was not intentional it was downright bad management. The previous government cannot have it both ways. In my opinion, they left rented housing in this country in its worst state since the war. When I finished my stint in local government and became a Member of Parliament, the policy was to widen the housing market and to make more options open to people. I never thought that I would have to stand here some years later to consider the wreckage that has been created.
I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has established the new social exclusion unit, but I hope that we shall not have just two or three years of talk. I do not know whether any of its members will have dealt with this problem at first hand. I suspect that many of them will be academics, who may not be the best people for such a body. I hope that some of its members may have made mistakes in this sector in the past. I hope that they will at least know the mistakes that were made and how to put them right. We must never again experiment with working-class people and council housing, as has happened in this country since the end of the war.
Many post-war council properties are being, or have been, demolished. I refer to walk-up flats and to deck-access flats which local authorities were forced to build because of the method of financial assistance used by government. That happened under governments of both parties. The two men mainly responsible were the late Lord Joseph and Richard Crossman. They were the men who put the thumbscrews on local politicians and said, "If you do not build this type of property, you will not get the subsidy". That entire swathe of building has now been lost.
I know that the City of Manchester has an enormous charge on its housing revenue account for properties which have now been knocked down. The same is true

633
in the former constituency of my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees. There is a huge charge in Leeds. Indeed, the last time that I checked, the debt charges alone were costing the Leeds housing revenue account over £1 million a year—and that is for a type of housing that should never have been built.
It is important that such things are explained so that we all know what happened. I hope that the Government will act quickly. There is enough evidence even without the new commission. Plenty of people who were involved in such operations can give advice. They know the mistakes that were made and can thus ensure that they do not occur again.
Finally, I say this—I have said it before—society is like a three-legged stool. Our main three social services are housing, health and education. Their order does not matter but if we let the "leg" of housing collapse, the deprivation will spread to the health service and our schools. One of the sad facts of life is that wherever kids are brought up in bad housing, they usually have the double penalty of having to go to a bad school. I represented such an area where the kids attended schools that were in worse condition than the local prison—and that is not an overstatement. We must involve local government once again. Where local authorities want to build, we must get them moving and started. We must make the necessary funding available to the Housing Corporation so that it can do its job. If we do not do that, we shall fail the nation and we shall not be able to put it right in my lifetime. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving us the opportunity to debate housing issues today. I must declare various interests. I am vice-president of the National Housing Federation and president of the National Housing Forum. I am also a member of the board of the Western Challenge Housing Association.
This country is almost unique, particularly in the western world, in that 70 per cent. of our population own their own homes, with only about 30 per cent. renting. Of that 30 per cent. the private rented sector represents only 10 per cent. The problems of the shortage of supply compared with demand for social housing have existed for many years. They do not seem to get better as time goes on. The collapse of the housing market exacerbated demand in a dwindling social housing sector. There were two main reasons for that. Falling investment in housing was accentuated by the number of homes lost to that sector because of the right to buy. The figures make pretty sorry reading. In 1996 we managed to build only 29,000 new houses for social renting. That is less than in any year since the war.
Despite the pressures, many imaginative schemes were put in place to try to improve supply in the private sector, particularly through schemes to bring properties not in use back into rent for people seeking social rented housing. All too often many government schemes involving some kind of financial help were short lived.
634
Despite that, a good deal of work was done and continues to be done by the Empty Homes Agency. That greatly encouraged many bodies, particularly local authorities, to develop good empty property strategies and thousands of empty properties were brought back into use for renting. It is a good example of partnership between the public and the private sectors. Very often local authorities and housing associations have managed these properties and put them into good order so that they can be let.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Government have launched a series of comprehensive spending reviews. It is hoped that they will report next spring. I trust that they will look at these kinds of schemes which not only bring empty properties back into use—we have about 700,000 in this country—but increase the supply of affordable rented housing. They help to improve neighbourhoods that have been blighted by rundown empty properties and enable private landlords to improve their properties and ensure that they are used and rented out.
The previous government estimated that there was need for about 60,000 new social rented units per year if demand was to be met. However, many organisations involved in the social rented sector, particularly Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation, believe that that was a great underestimate. Both I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have long believed it, too. We estimate that if the demand is to be met about 100,000 properties need to be brought on stream each year. That compares with the 29,000 last year.
Investment is required not only in new homes but also in tackling the backlog of disrepair in both the public and private sectors. Shelter estimates that in the council sector alone there is a backlog of disrepair amounting to £20 million. The results of the Government's review will shape future plans for spending on housing from 1999 onwards. I suspect that that is what this debate is about today. I was relieved to know that the Government intended to involve both the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Social Security. The interaction between housing investment, housing benefit, affordability and taxation must be very thoroughly examined before changes are made. The noble Lord who introduced this debate explained clearly why that is so.
This is a short debate and I have time to highlight only a few of the problems that must be tackled. We all want a flexible workforce and we want people to move from welfare to work. However, unless we tackle the poverty trap for those in the housing benefit regime the moment they try to get back into work we will not get very far. The situation is particularly acute for young people. Shelter commissioned a report entitled Benefits Shortfall in the wake of the reduction of housing benefit for young people. It does not make for very happy reading. It is believed that the changes have led to greater homelessness and that that has undermined other initiatives like welfare to work. Shared accommodation is not suitable for many young people, particularly the

635
vulnerable. In many areas it is impossible for young people to find accommodation at the amount allowed for the single room rent.
Not only have organisations like Shelter looked into this; private landlords have themselves considered it. They find that tenants are not able to pay their rent. They admit to giving advice not to let to young people under 25. Although the housing benefit changes may reduce the housing benefit bill, they create more homelessness particularly among the young who have to live in unsuitable conditions and considerable instability. That does not help them to get back into employment. I hope very much that the Government will respond today to recent rumours in the newspapers about what will happen to housing benefit and flat rates of housing benefit and the suggestion that housing benefit will disappear altogether.
The problems that we create by not providing decent housing for people have knock-on spending effects in other areas, particularly in health and crime prevention. I shall spend a short time considering what are termed independent social landlords, usually housing associations. Since 1988 the system of funding for new houses has been based on the linking of public and private funds. Such landlords have been the principal providers of new homes. They have been able to do this because they operate outside the public sector borrowing requirement restriction and have been able to borrow private money. Although these landlords appear to be rather robust at the moment, I believe that it is due in part to the collapse of the private housing market. They have been able to buy land and get good deals on the building of homes. That is changing. Unit costs are going up, which means that rents will also go up. We know that in this sector rents are higher than in the council housing sector.
At the same time, expenditure on repairs by these organisations is growing. Tax changes have pushed up their costs. In addition, there has been extra pressure from the Government to keep down rents. I believe that in the short term housing associations will be able to comply. However, the prediction by the board of the housing association on which I sit, following a submission by the financial executive on future finances, is that the association will very quickly move into deficit if it begins to subsidise rents too much. The situation is even worse for council housing where money cannot be borrowed from the private sector. In the short term capital receipts will help but in the long term better solutions must be found.
This leads me to reiterate a view that I and my party have long held. There is an urgent need for the Government to look at the way they account for public borrowing. No business puts capital and revenue together for accounting purposes; no business takes the view that capital investment for long term benefit is bad. Most of our European Union partners accept that, and their financial regimes reflect it. I suggest to both the Prime Minister and the Government that it would be good for this country's internal financial future if they looked seriously at changing the way in which the public sector borrowing requirement is assessed. To
636
bring this area more into line with Europe would be a useful boost to the Prime Minister in his request to be at the table in Europe discussing the development of monetary union.
There are two other important areas upon which I shall not dwell because my noble friend Lord Ezra will do so. They are the state of repair in the private rented housing sector and energy efficiency in our housing. The tax regime does not favour that, a matter on which my noble friend will talk further.
Finally, I turn to tackling social exclusion. It is a shame that we do not call it "social inclusion". That is a much more positive way of looking at it. Nothing excludes anyone from society more than being unable to have a warm, safe home in which to live. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Dean, I studied the make-up of the board, or whatever it will be called, of the social exclusion unit. I am worried that although there is someone from the DoE who has been involved in housing, there is no one from outside government at the coal face on that board. That is a shame.
Today we have seen some of the worst cold weather for some time. I heard on the radio this morning that a government building has been opened up to house the homeless and indeed that our Deputy Prime Minister was cooking breakfast for them. The need for more rented housing is greater than it has ever been. I hope that all this talking will lead to some action to achieve affordable housing in a comprehensive way in the long term. If our citizens are to achieve their full potential, they all need to have a safe, warm and affordable home.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject, and to hear of his wealth of experience and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The Church of England has been worried about the lack of low cost rented accommodation since the Archbishop's report, to which the noble Lord referred, entitled Faith in the City, drew attention to the problem some 15 years ago.
Since then, through our own church housing associations, Church Urban Fund projects, and in co-operation with our ecumenical colleagues, we have been working actively to address the problems associated with poor housing. We have come to appreciate some of the principal issues involved. Rented housing is vital to give people some degree of flexibility in the housing market. That is especially true for unemployed people or those on low incomes. Unless real housing opportunities are open to people at a price which they can afford, they may face homelessness, overcrowding and being forced into home ownership when they cannot afford it. Then, importantly, we believe that without affordable housing, people often find that they are unable to take up work and are trapped on benefits.
The past two decades have witnessed a dramatic decline in investment in social housing. There has been a shift away of course from the provision of housing by local authorities towards housing associations, but the

637
total levels of investment are way below those of the mid-1970s or even the early 1980s. As a result, the number of new affordable homes has fallen dramatically: in England, from nearly 70,000 new starts in 1979 to 22,000 in 1996. Over the same period, there has been a rise in homelessness across the country from 76,000 households in 1980 to 131,000 in 1996.
The conclusion is inescapable: social housing helps to prevent homelessness. If people have a change in their housing situation—let us say that they lose their jobs and cannot continue to maintain their payments, or they marry and cannot continue to live with their parents—it is far better if they can move into council housing or a housing association home when they need it, rather than struggle on until they finally become homeless.
Where the supply of social rented housing decreases, people have to reach a crisis in their housing situation before it seems they can receive any help. Families, especially those with children, then face the stress of being uprooted and spending often long periods in temporary accommodation, removed from the supportive networks of family, friends and schools. In many cases, the trauma of homelessness results in long-term damage to educational prospects and health.
The lack of an adequate supply of social housing has also contributed to the kind of problems which noble Lords were discussing yesterday in the crime and disorder debate. When there is a shortage of social housing, only those who are most vulnerable and needy can gain access to it. Therefore estates get high concentrations of children, people who need support, former homeless families, and those who are unemployed.
A vicious circle is created whereby an estate has few economically active members. Shops and banks withdraw from the estate; other services, apart from the Church, are long gone; social problems increase; and the neighbourhood becomes labelled as a "sink" or "ghetto" estate. If there were a greater supply of affordable housing, a far wider range of people could have access to it, so making such estates more diverse and economically active.
Then there is the problem of housing association rents and the benefits trap, to which the noble Baroness referred. As noble Lords will be well aware, housing associations have been the preferred government vehicle for investment in social housing since the Housing Act 1988. This shift has been dramatic. In 1980 local authorities built 33,500 new homes. In 1996, that had fallen to just 472. In the same period the number of new houses built by housing associations rose from 13,000 to almost 22,000 per annum.
Those new homes, built by housing associations, are subsidised by the Government paying a percentage of the development costs. The rest is borrowed from private lenders, but the average portion which the Government pay has fallen from 80 per cent. in 1990 to 54 per cent. now. Before 1988, that government proportion was determined on a scheme-by-scheme basis, often rising to over 90 per cent. in high cost areas. The shift in the government proportion means that housing associations now have to borrow far more of
638
the money privately, which is of course much more expensive. As a consequence, rents have more than doubled over the past nine years, and are likely to increase further.
The rents of some housing association homes mean that tenants are caught in a poverty trap. The noble Baroness mentioned that poverty trap, and I shall give an example. A family with two children, paying £64 a week rent, which is about the average in England for a new housing association letting, would find that its net disposable income begins to increase perceptively only when its gross income rises above £280 a week. From the higher income, the family would have to pay for travel, clothes and other work-related costs, plus school meals, prescriptions, and other benefits previously met for it as an income support recipient.
Unless a household has housing which is affordable to those on average incomes, it is unlikely to be able to afford to take up work, thus threatening the Government's welfare-to-work initiative. So much for social housing—fewer and fewer local authority dwellings, problematic rents for new housing association lettings. But what of the private rented sector?
Over the past decade the private sector, after many years of decline, has seen a marginal increase in its market share of rented properties. As the noble Baroness said, it now stands at approximately one-tenth. I believe that there are two reasons for that increase which are worth highlighting. First, the slump in the housing market from the late 1980s meant that people who were unable to sell their homes sometimes chose to let them instead. Now that the housing market is beginning to pick up and people are beginning to float out of negative equity, owners are starting to withdraw their houses from the rented sector. That might lead to a further contraction in the private rented sector.
Secondly, the deregulation of the private rented sector in 1988 gave landlords a greater ability to evict tenants and charge higher market rents. This brought more private rented accommodation into the sector, but it also had massive consequences for public expenditure. When asked how people on low incomes would afford the new high rents, Sir George Young, the then Housing Minister, said:
"Housing benefits would take the strain".
Some strain! The level of housing benefit rose from £3.8 billion in 1988 to £11.5 billion last year, and is projected to rise further. In effect, there has been a massive transfer away from a bricks and mortar subsidy towards a personal housing subsidy.
The worry is that this huge amount of public money has not significantly increased the amount of affordable housing available. Nor has it increased the quality of the housing stock. Once again, the high rents of the private rented sector mean that people living there are caught in the benefit trap. Surely, better ways are needed to be found to ensure that public money spent in the private sector is recycled as an investment in quality and supply, otherwise we continue to try to run up a rapidly descending escalator.

639
The private rented sector traditionally has had a bad image. Sometimes standards of safety and management have left much to be desired, yet the shortage of social housing has meant that homeless people have been forced to live in sometimes totally inappropriate and insecure private rented housing. But I believe that the private sector in Britain, as on the continent, has a vital role to fulfil, particularly for people who need the mobility and flexibility that it can offer.
There is a need for an increase in good quality private rented accommodation which will be available particularly for young people working in our cities. Some of the repossession problems of the 1980s were a consequence of such young people, for whom home ownership was not a very appropriate solution, being forced into buying by a chronic shortage of any alternative.
We need more balance in our housing provision in this country. Of course, many people will want to own their own homes for at least a part of their lives. But a flexible economy is dependent upon mobility and at different stages in our lives rented accommodation might well be a far more attractive option. But here we return to the basic dilemma. Rented housing needs to be affordable to allow people flexibility in their working lives. It has to be in sufficient supply to ensure that families are spared the trauma of homelessness. Furthermore, there must be a variety of provision so that we can move away from any sense of "ghettoism" of social housing. How we as a society tackle this critical issue, which affects the lives and future of so many of our citizens, will be an important determinant of the health and social cohesion of the nation in the next millennium.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Dean for tabling the Motion. When I looked at the list of speakers I decided that, although it was not long, it contained a wealth of experience and commitment as regards housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and our Minister, my noble friend Lady Farrington worked in local authorities and have a great deal of experience of housing. I put my name down with a little diffidence.
I declare an interest in that five weeks ago I was appointed chairman of the Housing Corporation. I believe that I should share with your Lordships some of my experiences and the views that I have reached during that short time. I am still not used to the term "social housing". I suggest that it carries a kind of stigma, but I do not believe that anyone can come forward with a better term. The Housing Corporation was established in 1964 to provide such social housing throughout England and I am now its chairman.
In preparation for the debate and for my work as chairman, I visited the Library, which is the font of a great deal of knowledge, and asked for copies of Oral and Written Questions and debates on housing during the past two years. I expected to come away with a pile of papers, but they did not measure half an inch.
640
Housing is at the centre of so much that we want for our communities. It is at the centre of delivering better education for our children and of the health of our nation. It is no coincidence that our previous debate on housing was initiated by my noble friend Lord Dean. It is to his credit that we are having the debate today.
I welcomed in particular the Prime Minister's announcement last week of a social exclusion unit. He recognised the importance of housing, saying that among the unit's first priorities would be the development of policies to improve the worst council estates and to help people who are sleeping rough. Many thousands of our citizens face sleeping rough, particularly in our inner cities. I saw that launch as a clear recognition that good housing plays a key part in creating the right conditions for successful, thriving communities. Members of the Housing Corporation welcome that and wish to play a key part in a constructive manner to help those policies along. Housing is important, too, as regards welfare-to-work. We wish to be involved in that debate and have taken some initiatives to endeavour to do so. I will leave other speakers to deal with the private sector.
In pressing the case for more rented housing, I accept that the Government have many competing policy priorities. It is not a situation of their making, but was inherited by them. It certainly is a great challenge. Previous speakers highlighted the report, which was presented to the previous government and accepted by them, which stated that during the next 25 years there would be a need for 4.4 million homes. In other words, there would be a need for 180,000 new homes each year. If we assume that one-third, 60,000, are for people who cannot afford the marketable price to buy their own home, it points to a housing programme in that social sector of some 60,000.
The current situation faced by the Housing Corporation is that whereas in the financial year 1992–93 its budget was £2.3 billion, this year it is only £700 million. The £2.3 billion helped to fund the building of more than 62,000 social homes to let. Yet we have seen new lettings decline to around 40,000 per annum. I suggest that the balance needs to be addressed urgently. The Government inherited the situation and it cannot be changed overnight. However, additional resources are required and I am sure that the Minister will accept that.
My second point is that, in providing more homes for rent, we must recognise that it is not just a case of putting roofs over people's heads. We have seen that in some of the inner city deprivation which we are facing and paying the price for today. It is about building communities for people which have cohesion for the overall lives of the people living within them. That cannot be achieved by any single agency. I suggest that it cannot be achieved by the Housing Corporation on its own or by local authorities or any other agencies on their own; it must be a partnership in its broadest sense.
It is that partnership within the community that we wish to be part of, and are part of in a number of good practice areas throughout the country today; for example, local councils, the Employment Service, City

641
Challenge, where there is one, the development agencies, together with local business and alongside housing associations and the corporation itself. There are good examples of that; for example, the foyer schemes which have been talked about. A few days after the General Election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid a visit to such a scheme in a London inner city area. He was so impressed with the foyer that he saw that he said, "We must have one of these in every city in the country". We are a long way from that.
Perhaps I may give as an example the co-op foyer in Wigan, an area of high youth unemployment. There are 42 bed units for young people with 12 information technology training places. Young people are being trained and given confidence, probably for the first time in their lives. They are better able to enter the job market. Social services work alongside with a day drop-in centre which provides any help that may be needed.
The co-op within that development has an arrangement with the local training and enterprise council that once it has placed 25 young people into full-time employment, training or education, it receives funding for that. Therefore, it is proving what can be achieved. It is being paid for that and then recycling that money to use for the next lot of young people. It is a first-rate, value-for-money scheme for the wider community. Certainly within the local community we must ensure that young people have dignity and the opportunity of employment because that brings along with it a much better community in which to live.
I use that example because of the concerns of this Government in relation to youth unemployment. In the short time that I have been associated with the corporation, I have been struck by the diversity of the sector and diversity of the need among members of our community. In London, in Hackney, on what is known as the Holly Street Estate, £20 million was spent on a scheme where the people were moved out of run-down, crime-ridden tower blocks into family housing. A neighbourhood watch scheme was established and residents co-operated with five housing associations to develop and regenerate that area as a community and not simply as housing units.
What was the result? The result was that calls to the police fell by two-thirds. The experience of burglaries, fear of crime and fire and fear that came from just living in the neighbourhood fell dramatically. That is added value and has meant that there is a community which is living in an inner city again and not walking day by day in fear of their lives. Therefore, that is a better quality of life for our citizens.
My noble friend referred to the deck flats in Hume. I was there two weeks ago. As a Mancunian and using lay vernacular, it could almost have been described as a no-go area originally. What is happening now? The deck flats have been pulled down, and, indeed, I saw the area where the last flats had been pulled down. The area is now being visited by town councillors from Europe who wish to see what has taken place. Families are living there. The first set of houses which were built for sale in the area are now being resold. People are prepared to
642
buy there; to establish their families in the area; and to work within the community. It is the envy of the area. But it does not come cheap. You cannot just look at it in terms of the cost of putting a roof over someone's head. It must be looked at in terms of the cost of improving the whole community and the whole environment for the citizens who live within it.
It is also about repairing breakdown in our communities and people feeling safe, as I said. In some areas, because of the diversity, the answer is not necessarily just to build new units. It is about regeneration and getting hold of old stock and rebuilding the communities.
I believe—if I may be audacious enough to say so as a chairman of only five weeks—that there must be a local solution to a local problem. It is no good giving instructions from on high. Local authorities should decide their own priorities and strategies. The approach should be one of total tenure within the community. In that regard, the regional development agencies, as proposed by the Government, are a key factor. We should like to work with them within the regions.
Our investment in housing must fit in with those strategies. Through the Housing Corporation, since 1988 £11 billion has been raised from the private sector. As was said, it is true that some 20 per cent. of private sector money went into building houses. Today it is about 46 per cent. but that is variable throughout the country.
I cannot finish my contribution without referring to the tenant. We talk about investment of the taxpayer and the private sector. I suggest that the biggest investment is from the tenants and their families. It is about their lives and the quality of them. I welcome this debate and I shall use every opportunity that I can to promote the case for social housing and to raise the profile of that sector which is profoundly important for our people.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for choosing this important subject for debate today. I have no doubt that my noble friend is one of the most experienced and knowledgeable persons on the subject of housing in the Palace of Westminster, and that includes the other place. My association with him goes back many years when he was chairman of the AMC—the Association of Municipal Corporations—housing committee. At that time Manchester had one of the best council housing schemes in the country and without any doubt at all one of the best direct labour organisations. Therefore, I thank him for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject.
Since the previous administration were elected in 1979, capital resources have reduced year by year. When I was chairman of the South Tyneside housing committee in 1979 under the government of my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, our HIP allocation was about £32 million at 1996 prices. Last year, it had reduced to one-seventh of that. We were building 800 council houses a year. Last year we built none.

643
The present Government have, under the phased release of capital receipts, improved matters for this financial year and will undoubtedly increase investment opportunities in future years. Although there is a strong temptation to commence local authority new build, it is my view that we should exercise caution for reasons to which I shall come later in my remarks. We should use the additional resources to refurbish and upgrade existing stock.
For many years those authorities which had the most problematic estates were successful under the various bidding regimes of the last government—estate action, single regeneration and so on. The unfortunate part about it was that the resources earmarked for those programmes came out of the housing investment programme. Although local authorities which submitted winning bids have benefited from large-scale capital investment on problematic estates, that has been at the expense of a reduced level of investment in other local authority council stock. Many tenants of local authority housing felt somewhat resentful when they witnessed large-scale investment in what were seen as problem areas while their own homes and estates were bypassed.
I believe that local authorities should endeavour to provide some new build programmes where a demand is clearly identified as part of an employment-creating strategy. But the main emphasis of the next few years should be on utilising existing resources, upgrading existing houses and helping existing tenants.
The former government's policy was to remove from local authorities the role of providing new accommodation to persons on their housing waiting lists. The previous government enthusiastically gave that role to the housing associations. Public subsidies were made available through the Housing Corporation. The local authority's role became that of an enabler rather than a provider. Housing associations have utilised private funding to lower the public sector contribution on new developments. Many associations submitted bids to the Housing Corporation seeking a lower level of grant than was necessarily available. This shortfall was offset by a larger percentage of private finance or, alternatively, from housing associations' reserves. The Housing Corporation was understandably influenced by bids from associations that required only a low level of public subsidy and would probably give preference to such bids as opposed to a competing scheme from another association that required a higher level of subsidy. It is undoubtedly the case that a higher level of private finance results in higher rents for tenants. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester mentioned that.
In the Tyne and Wear area the average rent on housing association estates is in the region of £65 to £70 a week. A recent study showed that everyone on an estate in that area was on benefit. We then see examples of the poverty trap syndrome. Before the general election when I was a Member of Parliament I dealt often with the problem of people who lived in housing association property and then found jobs only to discover that they could not take those jobs as they would be worse off financially through losing the high
644
benefits they were receiving as a result of being housing association tenants. A family comprising two adults and two children paying such a rent would have to ensure that the household's breadwinner earned about £15,000 a year to be no worse off when working than when on benefit. As soon as such people find a job, they ask to be put in local authority housing as they cannot afford to pay the housing association rents.
In recent years one of the most worrying problems for local authorities has been the increase in anti-social behaviour on some estates. Areas which suffer from high levels of anti-social behaviour often suffer also from high levels of criminal behaviour. Many estates containing popular, traditional houses are becoming hard to let because of the fear factor. There is nothing worse than seeing an estate full of boarded up houses. That gives a terrible impression.
In my opening remarks I said that we should concentrate our efforts on utilising resources to upgrade existing houses. However, there is a problem. I speak from my experience of South Tyneside council. I refer to the way housing finance is managed. Although the Government have exercised some control over local authority capital programmes, in more recent years the former government introduced tight controls on revenue resources. The main revenue controls are exercised in respect of establishing an annual guideline increase for local authorities and the clawback arrangement in respect of housing benefit subsidy. Any increase above the guideline figure does not qualify for housing benefit subsidy.
Despite South Tyneside having the third lowest rents of all local authorities, the council is constrained by the annual guideline figure. As regards the clawback arrangement that exists in respect to the housing benefit subsidy for 1998-99, some £5.3 million will be taken from the council house revenue account to reduce the Government's housing benefit subsidies. That factor above all others prevents a local authority from reinvesting in its housing estate.
South Tyneside's notional housing revenue account—it is notional in that it is assessed by the Government—has an income of £37 million in rent. That is a higher figure than it actually receives but it is the notional figure assessed by the Government. The council has £19 million to spend on management and maintenance—again, a notional figure, as the council spends more than that—and £12 million to pay off loan charges and other such charges. According to the notional housing revenue account, there is a surplus of £5.3 million. That £5.3 million is taken from the housing benefit subsidies. Therefore council house tenants in the South Tyneside area who are not on benefit are subsidising those tenants who are on benefit. There is something wrong with the system of housing finance when that occurs. What is required in the short term is the abolition of the housing element of the housing subsidy; payment of a standard rate of rent rebate subsidy across the entire country; the preservation of the rent guideline, if desired, with any excess over the guideline being supported by a reduced percentage in the rent rebate system; and action taken to address the inequity of the benefit subsidy system.

645
The continued erosion year by year of deemed rent surpluses in South Tyneside's notional housing revenue account is stifling investment, reducing the impact of the capital receipts initiative, and, most importantly of all, forcing more of the burden of financing benefit payments on to council tenants who are not on benefit themselves and often in low paid employment. What is required is a fundamental review of the financing of housing benefits. Council tenants should be allowed the same subsidy on housing benefit that applies to private sector tenants and housing association tenants; namely, 95 per cent. of the subsidy paid. If that were to happen, councils such as South Tyneside would be able to tackle their housing stock, encourage people to move into council houses, and upgrade the conditions of existing tenants by reinvesting some of that money in the council estates.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare two interests which I think are relevant to the debate. First, I am the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Secondly, I am the owner of an agricultural estate in Suffolk which has some rented housing.
We owe a deep debt to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing a debate on this important subject. I am afraid that I did not agree with much of his analysis. I thought that at one point he was rather unfair to the Conservative Party. I hope that he will excuse me if I presume to put him right on that. He implied that in the early days after the war the Tories had not been real house builders. I hope I may remind him that in 1950 at the Tory Party conference Harold Macmillan pledged the Tory Party to build 300,000 houses a year. It was at once denounced by Mr. Aneurin Bevan as a cruel deception and a trick. However, the houses were built by Mr. Ernest Marples who was the engine behind Mr. Macmillan.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, takes that view. I am as well aware as anyone of the achievements of Mr. Macmillan who on the question of housing would, I believe, stand with me and not with the noble Lord in his criticisms of the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. It is worth having those remarks on the record in memory of both Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Marples.
However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that it is a terrible mistake to sell council houses. There are all sorts of good reasons for selling council houses. One reason was that at the time the sales started a great many people in this country wished to become home owners. That is laudable and desirable. The sale of council houses enabled many people to become home owners. Perhaps a more important reason, however, is one that has been echoed again and again in speeches made in this House this afternoon; namely, all too often council estates become ghettos. They become thoroughly undesirable places in which to live and they become deprived places. I am sorry that the right reverend
646
Prelate is no longer in his seat. I listened to his excellent speech yesterday afternoon when he spoke about a council estate in his diocese which is "too tough" to live in. What a sad picture that portrayed.
I vividly remember my first experience of such a place when I visited Ferguslea Park in Paisley. It was a terrible sight, with houses boarded up. Anyone could have walked into the housing office with a week's rent and obtained a house instantly. Many of those areas were ghettos. In some areas of London we constantly read about appalling crimes being committed. The criminal environment is such that no one is prepared to help the police to control them. I believe that the breaking up and the sale of council estates has been beneficial on the whole. I shall explain later why I am such a supporter of the noble Baroness's housing associations which in many cases have taken over from council estates.
A central aspect of our debate is affordable housing. It is crucial to subsidise the tenant and not the house. The reason is simple. First, if the house is subsidised, whether privately owned or owned by a local authority council, it will not be properly maintained because the rent will probably not be sufficient to cover the cost of maintaining it properly. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dean, knows, over the decades many council houses have not been properly maintained. Secondly, with the limited public funds available to any government, it is not possible to avoid focusing social help where it is needed. Subsidising tenants rather than houses focuses help where it is needed.
The big change came in 1988 when the present housing benefit scheme came into force, together with the Housing Act 1988 which introduced the assured shorthold tenancies and the assured tenancies. As a result, private sector landlords were prepared to offer housing for rent. Previously landlords had sold let housing as soon as the property became vacant. The property was then immediately lost to the rented sector. Associated with that earlier period were the wicked days of Rachmanism whereby people bought up rented housing in order to get rid of the tenants and then to make a profit from selling it.
The position has now changed considerably. The private sector is now able most usefully to add to the stock of affordable housing because the tenant is subsidised through the housing benefit. The landlord is not being required to charge a wholly uneconomic rent. I have experience as regards rural areas. It has been possible to convert a number of redundant farm buildings into useful dwellings, often for rent. The people who own the buildings on the farms often do not wish to sell them.
The useful Review of Housing Benefit was published in May 1995 by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It quotes the DoE as suggesting that the,
"typical pre tax return on capital for private rented sector landlords is between 5% and 8% after management costs".
The DoE says that this,
"can hardly be regarded as extravagant".

647
The fact is that in the remaining controlled tenancies under the Rent Act 1977, rent officers are still regularly fixing rents at well below that level. No doubt they believe that they are saving public money. I believe that they are keeping part of the privately rented sector at a lower standard than it should be, because landlords cannot afford to make desirable improvements. I ask the Minister to ensure that, whether rents come under the 1977 Act or the 1988 Act, they are fixed at a reasonable level.
I turn now to the most important housing association sector. The noble Baroness is now responsible for something like 1,000 housing associations. They have done and are doing a wonderful job. In a way they are the providers of the future. In some respects one can say that housing association housing is council housing under another name; but it is very much better than council housing for a variety of reasons. First, the housing is usually built to a higher standard; secondly, housing associations show more imagination in design and location, are often innovative, and add greatly to the quality of the area in which they are located; thirdly, they tend to build in smaller numbers than the old big scale council housing estates, and they build where the housing is really needed; fourthly, their housing is better maintained. I do not know of any housing association houses which are boarded up. Certainly the housing association in Suffolk has done an excellent job and. frankly, there are now many villages in Suffolk where there is not a shortage of affordable housing. In certain areas housing associations—for example Suffolk Heritage Housing Association—have taken over responsibility for council housing. That is a good thing. I believe that about 55 district councils in England have handed over their housing stock to housing associations. That is very desirable.
I am particularly concerned at the impact on the English countryside of the target of 4.4 million new dwellings—it is a target which the present Government inherited from the previous government—which they have undertaken to provide by the year 2016. I reject such a policy of predict and provide. It is like roads. If the Government were to build all the roads people wanted they would still not have built enough. But they propose to build houses at an unacceptable cost to the countryside. I believe that the priority should be affordable housing. The private sector, both as builders and landlords, has a significant part to play. Once the affordable housing is provided, market forces should determine the supply of owner-occupied housing, within the constraints of available land.
The trend towards owner occupation has changed as a result of the collapse in house prices during the late 1980s and early 1990s. That is no bad thing. With a more mobile society, and people moving from job to job, it is not always a good idea for young people in particular to have the debt of a house tied round their necks. The idea that bricks and mortar are the only things into which to put money is almost as bad as the old concept that gold under the bed was the only thing to put money into.
648
I said earlier that I believed the right to buy was a good idea. On the whole, it has achieved its objectives. I urge the Government to change the Voluntary Purchase Grant Scheme. They opposed it when it was introduced by the previous government. Under the Voluntary Purchase Grant Scheme, if housing associations have houses in an area with greater than 3,000 inhabitants, they are required to be prepared to sell the houses. I believe that that is a mistake. If affordable houses, which are built in an area where they can be built, are sold, further affordable housing has to be built. Often the land is not available except at an unacceptable cost to the local landscape.
We need a more careful assessment of real housing needs. Not nearly enough attention is given to the needs of the smaller households. Not everyone wants a three or two-bedroomed house. I hope that the noble Baroness will focus the attention of her housing associations on that point.
In their 18 years in power the previous government put in place the framework for a better housing policy. I am glad to know from their manifesto that the present Government do not intend to make radical changes to the current framework of housing policy. Indeed, I hope that they will build upon it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for opening the debate, I think I must straightaway disabuse the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that the present Government are going to carry on the policies of the last government. I think that nothing could be further from the truth. At the start of my remarks I have to declare an interest as a residential landlord; I shall give some details of my experience in that capacity later.
I was particularly struck by the contribution of my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde when she questioned the use of the phrase "social housing". That was a very perspicacious remark. The Motion talks of the case for more rented housing in both the public and the private sectors. We need to recognise that there will be a need for rented housing, both public and private, for a number of different reasons. To start with, young people who are not yet settled in their future way of life may not want to commit themselves to buying a property; indeed, they may not be able to afford to buy one. People who move their jobs frequently may think it inconvenient to enter into the commitment of purchasing a house. Also, I would suggest that elderly people may not wish to have their capital tied up in a house as such. So there are a number of reasons why rented housing is necessary and important, and we need to recognise that it goes right across the scale from the bed sitter of the impecunious student at one end to the most grand tenant of the Duke of Westminster at the other.
It may be useful to relate some of my experiences and knowledge of the situation. I should like to take you back to the 1930s to the house that my lady wife grew up in after the war. It was in the council estate of West Derby in Liverpool. It is interesting to think that the

649
estate was not considered to be "social housing"—housing for the poor. This was housing for the middle classes and, dare one say it, for the upper-middle classes, because my wife's grandfather was a sea captain and in Liverpool that would have put him in the top bracket of society.
It is interesting to ponder the standard of housing that was built by municipal corporations at that time. I can relate the experience in the area in which I live in Manchester. There are two estates in the local ward. One is a council estate built by the city council of which my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick was such a distinguished member, the other a private speculative development. One estate is characterised by quality building standards, good materials, roomy interiors and well-sized gardens. You may think I am talking about the private development; I am not. This is the council estate. On the other hand, the private development goes under the name of Chorltonville and local knowledge has it that local builders used shoddy materials, scrimping all the way around, providing very small rooms and very small gardens. It is one of the unfortunate reflections of the market that houses in Chorltonville retail at over £100,000 whereas houses in the West Derby estate retail for about half that yet are of better quality.
It reminds me of the automobile magazine which asked, "What is the best car in the world, Jaguar or Rolls-Royce?" Having assiduously tested different models and reviewed their performance it concluded that the Jaguar was the better car even though it cost half as much as the other. Yet the public perception was that the Rolls-Royce was the better car. This is one of the difficulties we encounter in the market place in housing. I hope that the Government will think in terms of how we tackle the difference between perception and reality.
I mentioned at the beginning that I had a vested interest as a residential landlord. A couple of years ago I was looking for a house to buy in London. I saw one that was roughly in my price bracket. It was a four-bedroomed house in multiple occupation. Seven tenants were living in absolute squalor. Window frames were falling out and there were no decent facilities. There was a cold water tap in the kitchen and a gas stove that should have been on the tip rather than in a domestic residence. I was advised by the owner that he was netting 00,000 a year from the rents of those tenants. He had been served with notices for improvement by the local authority but seemed quite happy to go along to the court and pay the odd fine now and again. The serving of a notice of improvement was the rule a couple of years ago. It was a Conservative government, in the last dying throes of their administration, who took away the requirement that houses in multiple occupation should be improved by the landlord so that they were fit for people to live in. Not only that: even where legislation required improvement by landlords of houses in multiple occupation the government starved local government of the resources to implement that policy. A number of people have mentioned that when the Conservative government came to power in 1979 one of their first
650
actions was to cut investment in council house building. It seems that council housing and municipal housing were under sustained attack by the previous government all the way through.
The result is that people end up living in squalor. There was a case reported the other day of a young student who had died as a result of incompetent work by the landlord and the person he had employed to fit a gas fire and a gas cooker. I am very glad that those people were severely punished. When we talk about housing we need to recognise that it is a life and death issue. I accuse the previous government of abdicating their responsibility to look after the people of this country.
What prospects do we have now? First of all, the new Labour Government have already acted on the manifesto commitment of ensuring that capital receipts from the sale of council houses received but not spent by local councils are reinvested to help build new houses and rehabilitate old ones. It is interesting that this will be phased to match the capacity of the building industry and to meet the requirements of prudent economic management. I am reminded of the biography of Nye Bevan written by Michael Foot, which explained that even though Nye Bevan as Minister of Housing came under immense pressure to build more houses because of the desperate shortage and the need for housing that existed after the war, he said, "No, I am going to ensure that we build decent houses for decent people." That, in practice, meant building fewer houses because the materials, the skills and the workmen were not available. The resources had to be built up over time. That process of building up the necessary facilities was capitalised on by future Conservative Ministers.
The new Government will do more. Again I quote from our manifesto:
"We will provide protection where most needed: for tenants in houses in multiple occupation. There will be a proper system of licensing by local authorities which will benefit tenants and responsible landlords alike".
I am glad of that commitment.
We will also place local authorities under a new duty to protect those who are homeless through no fault of their own and in priority need. Effectively, the new Government are turning away from the policies of the previous government. I am very glad they are doing so.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the debate has been enlivened by the experience of so many who, although not at the sharp end—that is, desperate to find a decent place to live—have been involved as councillors or Members of Parliament and in other ways. The House therefore has an opportunity to listen to people such as my noble friend Lord Dean, whose experience in this field is unrivalled. I also extend a warm welcome to my noble friend Lady Dean, who comes with the unique qualification of her newly acquired post. Although she has occupied it for only five weeks, she could have fooled me. From the thoughts and experiences she related, it is quite clear that the platform that this House will provide for her to test her

651
own opinions and those of her colleagues in the Housing Corporation from time to time will be put to very good use.
I sense, as previously, that we are at the beginning of what will be seen in years to come as an opportunity for the people of this country to make a great contribution towards solving the housing problem. In fact, the problem will never be solved; it is gigantic, and will be with us for ever. I do not blame the previous government for their record. It would have been impossible, as it will be for this Government, to solve the housing problem. We can only do our best.
The National Housing Federation, the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Housing produced a document entitled, Making Partnership Work. I have no time to go into detail, but the document demonstrated that there are partnerships, collaborations and opportunities for groups and institutions to work together. I commend those three organisations for their endeavours.
We could spend time down memory lane, thinking about the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, even the 1990s, and we could castigate a particular government, council, individual or policy. But our concern should be not with what has gone before. By all means we should learn from what has gone before and remember it; but our concern should be with what the Government and the Housing Corporation can do now.
When I was Member of Parliament for Edmonton I confess that I went home from the House more than once having cried in my car, following a surgery during which I had listened to the misery that my constituents brought to me, invariably born out of problems to do with housing. Matters of health, education and employment were all vital; but the condition that brought the most misery was the quality or absence of housing. No one could forget that.
When I look back over my past 30 or 40 years as chairman of a housing committee, a council leader and Member of Parliament, I realise that there are good landlords and bad landlords, good councils and bad councils, good tenants and bad tenants. It is no use castigating a class of people. It is no good saying that private landlords are bad and ipso facto public landlords are good. They may approach the problem on a different level and try to achieve different things.
Looking back over the past few years, the problem that those involved in housing have had to recognise is the enormous change in household formation across the country. At one time the household would be a man, his wife and two or three children, who had modest aspirations. What they wanted was a well-built house with a small garden, access to shopping, and access to trains. Now, people live longer; they live as single units, following divorce; there is separation; and there has been the baby boom. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the break-up of the former council estates and the right to buy one's own house. That was one of the biggest bribes ever placed before the council tenant. Very few council tenants who had nothing would resist the opportunity to buy for £10,000 a house valued at
652
£30,000—and they took that opportunity. But in doing so, not only was the unity of the estates broken up—which is not a bad thing—but the local authorities were then saddled with the desperate problem of how to manage the remaining housing stock. I respect the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that it was a good thing. But out of that good thing came some very bad consequences which had to be dealt with.
The cost of putting right the quality of housing in both the public and private sector is a very real problem. I hope that this Government will demonstrate, more than the previous government did, that they want to solve the housing problem. I do not believe that they ever will solve it, but I believe that the will to solve the problem is there.
And there is the experience of the past few years in terms of different forms of tenure. My noble friend Lady Dean alluded slightly to the housing sector which I believe can provide the people of this country with opportunities; namely, the co-operative housing sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, while not eulogising, paid tribute to the housing associations. They are unelected and unaccountable, a small group of people who organise themselves and have the opportunity to do good. Nobody elects them; they are removed by themselves, and replaced by themselves. Most people in this place own their own house, and in so doing have a stake in what happens to that house. A tenant in privately rented accommodation does not have a stake, because there is no access to control. A council tenant or housing association tenant may very well enjoy good housing and pay the rent, but such tenants do not have access to control. Who controls the ownership of the premises, or the key to the future?
I should like to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has considerable experience in housing matters, and my noble friend Lady Dean—all I want her to do is to listen, but not necessarily to nod her head (I shall not look in her direction)—is that there is an opportunity for the Housing Corporation and the Government to examine again the possibilities for co-operative housing.
In 1991 the Department of the Environment commissioned Price Waterhouse to carry out an investigation into co-operative and related housing. I take the point about "social housing" made by my noble friend Lady Dean. Whether there was a stigma or not, people knew what was meant by council housing. For a long time it meant good, well-built, decently priced, affordable housing. If that has to be changed, so be it.
Price Waterhouse said, when it examined the co-operative sector:
"small-scale community-based TMOs [tenant management organisations] are able to deliver superior value for money; in the housing association sector PVCs are a flexible model capable of delivering housing services which compare with the very best mainstream providers; where appropriate PVCs should he encouraged to buy-in services from specialist support agencies; the development of TMCs [tenant management co-operatives] in the local authority sector is more likely to produce better results than forms of TMO where responsibility is diffused and roles are circumscribed."

653
There are 20,000 to 30,000 houses in co-operatives. The tenants are the owners and the tenant-owners are the managers. They have a stake. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that if we are to pursue the concept of a stakeholder society we can do it best in the realm of housing. People are stakeholders and many people could, in my view, benefit from it.
Co-operative housing is cost efficient and effective. It gives people the opportunity, through the democracy of the co-operative, not only to have a say in who should come in and who should go out but in all the other ranges of activity. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that such housing will never be free of some form of subsidy. If we want good quality housing, we need to take account of the fact that many people, through no fault of their own, are unable to pay the market rate. There must be a mechanism. This is not the right debate in which to talk about housing finance. I simply say that co-operative housing can be one of the means—and only one—which will help to solve the problem of housing in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, has once again stimulated a debate about the quality of housing. When he, like me, came into local government—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, champing at the bit; she wants to get in her twopennyworth in the debate; she knows all about it—we all had housing experience. In those days housing had a much higher profile, it made people angry and desperate. I have told the House that it made me weep. With a commodity or sphere of public life capable of moving people in that way, we must recognise that the problem must be solved. It can be solved best by collaboration. Another word for "collaboration" is "co-operation". I believe that co-operation in housing, through co-operative housing, is one of the ways in which the problem will be solved.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, we have had a wide-ranging and well informed debate from all sides of the House. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for having introduced it and for having made such a powerful case for increased availability of rented property both in the public and the private sector. The point was vigorously taken up by my noble friend Lady Maddock with her great experience of housing matters. She referred specifically to the poverty trap in housing which was eloquently dealt with by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, from his experience.
One of the points I wish to take up was made throughout the debate: the question of the quality of housing. It is a matter in which I have been involved for many years as President of the National Home Improvement Council. Quite recently, on 28th July, I asked an Unstarred Question about the need to increase the rate of renovation of domestic properties, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, replied. So she will be aware of what I said on that occasion and will no doubt remember what she said in answer.
654
I reminded the House that, based on house condition surveys and other studies such as the Rowntree Report on the state of UK housing, 2.5 million homes are in need of substantial repair in Britain, representing something like 14 per cent. of all homes in the country. But as regards the private rented sector in particular, the position is even worse. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, gave us a graphic illustration of the conditions one can get at the lower end of the private rented market.
The Association of Residential Letting Agents recently stated that:
"the condition of over a fifth of the privately rented accommodation in this country is among the worst in Europe. Until every part of our sector is managed to reasonable minimum standards, we will never shake off our poor image".
This highly regrettable situation is confirmed in depth by the energy report of 1996, issued by the then Department of the Environment, arising out of the last English house condition survey. The report emphasised the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that cold homes are one of the worst health risks in this country, particularly for the elderly on low incomes who have to live in them.
These conditions tend to be worse in rented accommodation. While 10 per cent. of owner-occupied dwellings lack central heating, the proportion is 40 per cent. in the private rented sector. About 15 per cent. of all converted flats—the most common dwelling type—have no fixed heating of any kind. The elderly on low incomes in private rented accommodation are the part of our population that suffers most. Altogether about 1 million or 22 per cent. of all households with persons over 65 years of age live in homes with SAP ratings below 20 per cent. The SAP rating is a government rating for relative heating efficiency. That 20 per cent. is under half of what is required for normal heating standards.
The Rowntree Report takes a pretty gloomy view of the future, if things are left as they are. Its conclusion states:
"the abolition of mandatory renovation grants in England and Wales through the 1996 Housing Grant, Construction and Regeneration Act will [no doubt] relieve pressures on local authority budgets but may lead to a reduction in public spending if hard-pressed local authorities cut back on grant provision. In the absence of new measures to encourage private spending and to make it more effective, there is a strong prospect that housing conditions for low income homeowners and those in the private rented sector may deteriorate in the medium and long term,".
In other words, the present unsatisfactory situation could get even worse in the future. I do not believe that that is at all acceptable.
Thus I must ask the question which other noble Lords have posed in the debate: has the time not come for a total rethink of the situation, particularly for a rethink of the position relating to the disrepair of such a large proportion of our housing stock? Is there not a need for a national strategy to deal with the problem, as is being urged by the Chartered Institute of Housing?
It is clear, in my opinion, in present budgetary conditions, that the Government are most unlikely to increase renovation grants, however strong the case may

655
be. But could not the system be reshaped to attract private funding? Should there not be some form of registration of private rented accommodation, to ensure that the quality is reasonable and that the heating is adequate and safe? The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell referred to the worrying case of unsafe heating which we read about the other day.
My noble friend Lady Maddock referred to the need for fiscal incentives for the renovation and improvement of property. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to housing co-operatives. There are a large number of new ideas being put forward in this whole area. What we cannot afford to do is to allow things to go on as they are. House condition survey after house condition survey shows that the proportion of low quality domestic dwellings in this country is increasing; there is no reason to suppose that the next house condition survey will not once again reveal that situation.
The Government have limited resources at their disposal. However, they are making capital receipts available to local authorities and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, that the emphasis should be on improvement and renovation of existing stock. Out of all those new ideas a new strategy should emerge. If we are going to create a New Britain, which is the aim of the Government, surely a large proportion of decrepit housing cannot be part of it.
5 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for initiating this debate. It is a subject of immense importance and raises our emotions, as we have seen today. I feel it is timely that we are discussing this issue today as we approach the Christmas festivities. If we were given a Christmas wish I am sure that Members of your Lordships' House would wish that families, particularly those with children, would share in happy, loving times in homes of a high quality in warmth and comfort. Sadly, life is not like that and we have to deal with the situation as it is.
I rise with humility. I listened, as we all have, to people with experience who have shown that they know their subject. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and hope that she will forgive me and not think me rude when I say that she is a fast learner.
We are not dealing with overall housing, but the specific matter of rented accommodation. The Conservative Party has always had home ownership high on its agenda. But at the same time, we always laid great stress on the quality and standards of the rented sector. My noble friend Lord Marlesford illustrated that earlier. We recognise the need for diversity and choice and when in government concentrated on that aim. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, explained, there has been a dramatic change in the way we live over the past 20 years. People are living longer and many elderly people are living alone. We have seen the breakdown of marriage, often leading to both parents claiming the need for suitable accommodation for their
656
children while on staying access. Many young people who would have remained in the family home until marriage or moved to another part of the country, now prefer to have, in current jargon, their own "pad".
For those and many other reasons a massive strain has been placed on resources and now we are told that we need 4 million new homes by 2016. We should keep in mind that we have no increase in population; it is demographic changes that have brought this about. There has been and always will be a real need for rented accommodation. Some people do not want the responsibility of owning a house and all that goes with it. Some may not be able to raise the deposit. Some, due to breakdown in relationships, move to other areas. And some need temporary accommodation.
There are two types of rented accommodation; namely, the private and the social subsidised accommodation. The private sector can provide for many in the groups I mentioned. Social housing can enable those on low incomes to have a decent home. But of course that type of housing does not have to be provided by central or local government. In Britain we have a long tradition of private trusts and charitable foundations providing accommodation for low income families.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. When his party was last in government between 1974 and 1979, 400,000 private homes were lost from the rental market. That was due to more and more regulation and constraints placed on landlords. The last government understood only too well the importance of the private sector and so, on assuming office, set about deregulation of that sector. Landlords were encouraged to rent out their property, allowing them to set market rents and, in agreement with their tenants, specify a fixed term after which the property could be repossessed.
At the same time, tenants were encouraged to rent property by providing them with extra protection against illegal eviction and harassment. The number of households in that sector increased from 1.7 million in 1988 to 2.1 million in 1996. I believe that that was a direct result of deregulation and other initiatives to sustain the revival of the rented sector.
I turn to social housing. As I said earlier, that does not have to be provided by local or central government. Perhaps the most exciting development in recent years has been the dramatic growth of housing associations. The last government welcomed that diversity and the end of local government monopoly. There are strong obligations to which the associations have to adhere. High standards and quality are required and the incomes of the tenants always have to be borne in mind. Those associations have been enormously successful in building affordable homes and attracting £6.4 billion of private investment.
Local government provision has been strengthened for tenants to ensure high standards of service. Under the council tenants' charter, tenants are now entitled to a lifetime of security; to have urgent repairs done quickly at no cost to themselves; to take in lodgers and sub-let part of their home; to exchange their home for

657
another one; and, most importantly, to be consulted on the management of their homes. Of course, there are many other measures.
Perhaps at this stage I can mention the difficult subject of housing homeless people, for whom I have great compassion. I know of one couple who acted responsibly throughout. They became engaged and applied for accommodation with the council. They waited a number of months before they married. But, on the night of their wedding, they each returned to their parents' home, neither parent being willing to have both of them living with them.
It was many months before a flat was offered. They did not start a family or try to jump the queue in any other way. But one can imagine their misery. In a village everyone knows when a flat becomes vacant; and the couple watched as people who they believed had acted irresponsibly leapfrogged over them. We must be aware and sensitive to the concerns of people in such situations, and I ask the Minister to keep that matter in mind.
In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said, I am proud of my party's achievements in providing homes of an increasingly high standard. Of course, there are always new challenges and demands as time moves on and there is always much to do. But I cannot finish without reference to capital receipts, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I understand that instead of allowing councils to spend their set-aside capital receipts, as had been promised, the Government now intend to allow councils to borrow more. This can only result in higher public sector debt.
My Lords, I end where I began. We need to keep the housing agenda on the front burner. We should continue to search for imaginative initiatives so that in the not too distant future our wish to see most of our people in decent, warm, safe and affordable accommodation will be on the way to achievement.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this has been one of the most knowledgeable and wide-ranging debates that it has been my pleasure to listen to in the House. I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick on bringing to the attention of the House the important issue of the need for rented housing in the public and private rented sectors.
Housing is at the heart of this Government's wider social agenda to tackle disadvantage and all manifestations of social exclusion. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick asked about the membership of the social exclusion unit which has been set up within the Cabinet Office. It brings together senior government officials and representatives from local authorities, voluntary organisations and business. That is a good range of knowledge and expertise to cover the many aspects of social exclusion.
Making housing the central feature is integral to our aims of giving people a decent quality of life, involving them and giving them control over the way they live,
658
and supporting family life and healthy families. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick that health and housing are closely linked. In developing our housing policy, we also need to ensure that people are not excluded by benefit dependency from work and the social and economic support and opportunities that work brings.
We recognise that most families want to own their own homes. We are pursuing policies designed to limit instability in the housing market. We recognise that renting plays a vital role in meeting a large part of housing need. The private rented sector contributes to a more mobile and flexible labour market and is a stepping stone to home ownership for those who can afford it. Several noble Lords referred to mobility. If we look at those under 35, even those who are highly qualified and in professional jobs, it is a surprise to my age group and those older than myself to discover how few have permanent appointments and how many know that mobility is part of their future career.
Our objective for social housing is to encourage the provision of well managed housing, of good quality, securing value for money—value for individual and family money and value for public money. That requires a partnership approach, with everyone—government, local authorities, housing associations, communities, voluntary groups, private funders and tenants—working together.
Many speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, asked about the complex world of local and public funding policy, local authority housing finance rules, regulations and policy, and contributions from public expenditure towards housing. All government departments are engaged in comprehensive reviews of government expenditure. A review of spending on housing is being carried out by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Social Security. This joint exercise recognises the interdependence of spending on housing and spending on housing benefit. Among other things, the review will consider future investment, the better targeting of that investment and how we estimate housing need. Both the definition of the PSBR and the whole issue of ring-fencing the housing revenue account—a complex area to tackle—are part of the wide-ranging review.
One issue—I refer here to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—is whether it is reasonable to take the view that, where there needs to be investment in renovation of older housing stock that is publicly owned, it should be a charge on all the people living in a community who own it or only on those people who happen to be tenants of the local authority housing. That is one of the issues to be considered during the review.
Behind the review there are a number of fundamentals: making certain that what comes out will work; that there should be no rigid compartments either within social housing or between social housing and other housing; that all the housing sectors should make a contribution to meeting need; that housing strategies should look across all sectors; and that we should look

659
for variations around the country so that local needs can be taken into account. Factors vary from one area to another and a solution in the centre of London may not work in the fells in Lancashire. My noble friend Lady Dean referred to the importance of looking at future housing developments as building and strengthening communities and not merely as bricks and mortar.
The capital receipts initiative was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and by my noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Dixon. The previous government slashed capital investment in housing year on year. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, hoped that we would build on the previous government's policy. I hope that we will build a little faster, because the rate at which the previous government were building was making the waiting list grow. Under the previous government capital investment fell from £4.3 billion in 1992-93 to £1.7 billion this year. We cannot change that overnight but we have started with £800 million of additional resources.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, asked whether investment should be linked directly to the receipt of capital receipts by individual authorities. That kind of thinking can lead us into the difficulty of ending up with houses being built in an area where there is little demand and no capital receipts being available in local authority areas where there is great demand. It would fail to meet the needs of those who have the most acute problems to do anything other than follow the wise policy that has been pursued by our Government in the months since May.
The noble Lords, Lord Dean and Lord Dixon, said that a first priority was to tackle the years of neglect in terms of the basic stock. We must recognise that alongside building new housing is the need to renovate, restore and repair the fabric of buildings. Each local authority must identify the specific needs in its area. On current plans we expect about 200,000 additional social lettings to be provided for rent and shared ownership over the four years 1997-98 to 2000-01. Around 60 per cent. of those will be new build. It is important to recognise that the remaining 40 per cent. will be achieved through the restoration of other property.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was not alone in making a comparison between the relative merits and values of different types of provision. I started by serving on a borough council housing committee, and from my experience, comparisons are odious. To look at whether housing associations, local authorities, the private rented sector or home ownership are best and most ideal in order to solve any particular housing problem is a mistake. The housing associations movement has become increasingly adept at attracting private finance to complement public funding. So if local authorities provide new social housing, in partnership with housing associations, more homes may be provided than would be possible through public resources alone. Housing associations—or registered social landlords, to use their formal title—have skills as developers and managers of housing. They are in a good position to be partners in the wider regeneration of
660
communities with the most severe economic and social problems. Several speakers, including my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to this. It is all linked to the important issue of getting people back to work as part of developing a strategy to improve and develop the housing stock.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton is renowned for his knowledge of and support for housing co-operatives. He is outstandingly respected in the Co-operative movement. We are keen to see the development of tenant participation more generally. The development of housing co-operatives is seen as part of that wider approach. We are currently reviewing policies for tenant participation, looking at a range of issues including the raising of standards and implementing a more consistent approach to tenant participation across the whole of social housing. The Housing Corporation is currently undertaking a review of tenant participation and housing co-operative strategies.
We have also asked officials to discuss with the Housing Corporation a paper received from the all-party parliamentary group on housing co-operatives in the context of looking at tenant participation in the round. The words spoken by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton were extremely wise as regards the issue of ownership. It is not only ownership through holding the title deeds and the mortgage, but having ownership that stretches in a deeper and more fundamental way. The approach and philosophy of housing co-operatives can often develop that.
The Housing Corporation, which my noble friend Lady Dean has been appointed to chair, is obviously going to be an extremely important player in developing a housing strategy that is comprehensive and that will meet needs. It is always difficult to cope with someone of her ability, skill and knowledge who has been appointed as the first woman to the post. I know that she has been appointed on ability alone. I am delighted that the ability of women of her calibre is now being recognised in such posts.
My noble friend Lady Dean referred to the realism with which we must speak of the financial position. I fully agree with her, particularly as regards those features which she identified as critical: the importance of housing in tackling social exclusion; the relationship of housing to other social policies, illustrated by her reference to foyer schemes and their support for education and training. There is also the importance of good design and effective housing management in saving wider costs, for example, on policing.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the important and integral value of energy conservation both in terms of the quality of our lives and our approach to wider environmental issues. My ministerial colleagues will be looking to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and her board to guide the Housing Corporation. They also value the insight that they can give on social housing policies more generally.
The Housing Corporation has an approved development programme. My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has already asked the Housing Corporation to develop its

661
programme in a number of ways, ahead of the outcome of our review of spending, placing even greater emphasis on homes for rent, with 80 per cent. of the programme's expenditure, compared with 75 per cent. in previous years.
In this short debate many speakers have referred to the importance of estimating the level of need for the future. The private rented sector is part of the fabric of seeking to meet housing need. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to that. Over 10 per cent., which is 2.1 million households, now occupy that sector. We are seeing a growth in demand for privately rented accommodation. It is extremely important that we recognise that the demand will grow as an additional range of housing units become available.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Monkswell, referred in particular to being fair to good landlords. That is a point which is often forgotten in debates on housing. They stressed the importance of the quality of housing available in the private rented sector. In particular there is the need for a national licensing system for houses of multiple occupation, and that has been recognised by the Government. Of course the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, is right when she said that we should minimise unnecessary regulation and control. But there must be a legal duty to protect the health and safety of people living in such accommodation.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester also referred to the range of housing available for people and the need to ensure that it is all of good quality. There is much that can be said about those who will be our partners in the exciting new venture, which is seeking to meet housing needs, working in co-operation with local authorities and a range of agencies.
Many of those involved in this partnership such as the Housing Corporation, as my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde is fully aware, have all-party support. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to the Empty Homes Agency. That is another example of all-party support.
It is critical that we face the many challenges as we move towards the 21st century. Our aims are clear. We need housing which works and goes on working. The key point underlying our policies for investing in social housing is that we must create a framework which is sensitive to local requirements and which makes the best use of resources. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester referred to the impact on individuals of housing problems.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for concluding with a personal anecdote. While I was chairman of the education committee in Lancashire, we appointed a head teacher during that period of the 1980s when it was difficult to sell property. The head teacher ended up being homeless, unable to buy because he was unable to sell. For three months he lived in the homeless families accommodation that was available in that seaside area of Lancashire. He said that without that personal experience he would never have understood how much
662
a child's inability to perform well at school relates to the quality and experience of his home and home environment.
I finish where my noble friend began. Health, housing and education are linked together—and this Government are determined to have a strategy that works in all areas.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, when I first chose this subject for debate I was a little dubious about whether now was the right time or whether it might he a little too early and we might be expecting a bit too much. I wondered also whether the debate would attract enough speakers. However, this debate has been an outstanding success, and I hope that what has been said will be listened to by the Government at the other end of the corridor.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. All contributions have been excellent. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and I disagree slightly on some matters, but I believe that our objective is the same.
I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Dixon referred to my period in local government. In those days, housing policy was "hyperactive"; it was a different wicket. Under the leadership of a man called Bob Thomas—he became Sir Robert Thomas—Manchester cleared 85,000 slum houses in fewer than 20 years. Think of the enormity of that undertaking. I do not believe that that man was ever given sufficient credit for what he did. I played my part, at a pretty high level and, as my noble friend Lord Dixon said, I eventually became the last chairman of the old Association of Municipal Corporations, and was a founder member of its successor body, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
This has been a wonderful debate. I conclude by thanking my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton for the excellent way in which she replied in detail from the Dispatch Box to all the points made. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Nuclear Weapons: Papal Policy
5.32 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney rose to call attention to the speech of the Pope's Permanent Representative, Archbishop Renato Martino, at the United Nations on 15th October making the case for doing away with nuclear weapons; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the decision by the Vatican to come out for nuclear disarmament was hailed in many countries as one of world importance. It gained little attention here. I am not aware that it has been welcomed in another place, and in your Lordships' House it is left to me, a humanist, so I warmly welcome the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford among the speakers.
So what was the message? Here I can give only the outlines, but I have taken the precaution of making photocopies of the full speech available in the Library.

663
I believe that noble Lords and noble Baronesses, Catholic or not, religious or not, will find it thought-provoking to say the least.
The representative of the Holy See said:
"Nuclear weapons cannot be justified and deserve condemnation…Nuclear arms are incompatible with the peace we seek…If biological weapons, chemical weapons and now landmines can be done away with so too can nuclear weapons…No weapon threatens the longed-for peace of the 21st Century as the nuclear. Let not the immensity of this task dissuade us from the effort needed to free humanity from this scourge".
The Archbishop also said:
"Nuclear weapons can destroy all life on the planet. They imperil all that humanity has ever stood for and indeed, humanity itself…The international community cannot shield itself from the assault on life itself that nuclear weapons represent…The world must move to the abolition of nuclear weapons through a universal non-discriminatory ban with intensive inspection by a universal authority".
I could quote much more of that speech, but your Lordships may read it for yourselves in the Library.
I believe that the Prime Minister might say that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is in line with that now made with papal authority in that the elimination of the nuclear weapon is already the Government's aim.
That may be so, but it is not sufficiently clear. In this Chamber, for example, and perhaps in another place also, we hear two different voices from the Government Front Bench, bringing two different messages. One, with Foreign Office authority (which I am happy that we shall hear tonight) confirms what I understand to be the position that I have just ascribed to the Prime Minister—that is, that we seek to negotiate the universal elimination of the nuclear weapon. The other voice, in the accents of the defence department, never mentions the word "elimination". It concentrates on telling us that the Government intend to keep Trident. One might think that the wretched thing was immortal or at least permanent, for it is never suggested that we want a nuclear-free world—not in that voice—and that we are working to that end, an end which will entail the end of Trident with all the rest of the nuclear horrors.
I invite the Prime Minister to congratulate the Pope on the statement made on his behalf and to make it clear that this country will do its utmost in the cause of doing away with nuclear weapons on the basis of a universal, verified and enforced international agreement.
It has been suggested to me that since this Motion was drafted—and, indeed, last week—the United Kingdom has voted against nuclear disarmament at the United Nations. If that were so and if the Cabinet agreed that it were so, which it does not, I should certainly not now be taking the parliamentary Labour Party's Whip in this Chamber and the party itself might not be in one piece.
However, I have investigated the matter. It is true that, led by the United States, the nuclear powers, with the important exception of China, voted against a motion for nuclear disarmament moved by Malaysia. They were roundly defeated by 116 votes to 26 with 24 abstentions, so, as the General Assembly is the only parliament of the world that we have, it can be said that the peoples of our planet are massively opposed to
664
nuclear weapons. The Pope's representative forecast that decision. Therefore this is no time for nuclear disarmers to give up.
Furthermore, the Government's explanation for their action in voting against the Malaysian resolution begins,
"The United Kingdom is committed to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons".
It could hardly be clearer, could it? They go on to explain why they voted against the resolution, obviously taking the view, as the explanation makes clear, that this is not the way to go about it.
This is neither the time nor the place to pursue that particular matter further, complicated as it is. However, I believe that we are entitled to ask; if the nuclear powers will accept only paths to elimination designed by themselves, do they not have the duty to map it out in detail? Only then will the rest of the world begin to believe that they may be serious. The fate of our civilisation may depend upon it. Let the Foreign Secretary and his representative in the Chamber tonight draft a procedure to that end so that we may say that the world, as I believe to be the case, is gradually but certainly moving towards the cause of nuclear disarmament because it knows in its heart that it must be done. We hope to hear from my Front Bench tonight that we are on the way to achieving that. I beg to move for Papers.
5.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, this is an opportune time to have a debate on nuclear weapons. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for initiating it. I believe that on an issue like this it is important to be clear about and never forget the salient facts. They may or may not be palatable; but facts they are and unless they are taken into account and continually borne in mind the whole discussion can become unreal.
First, the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons can never be unlearnt. Even if all nuclear warheads in the world were destroyed and all missile systems dismantled the capacity to make nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them would remain. We have eaten the apple of nuclear know-how and can never get back into the garden of pre-nuclear innocence. The implication of this is that until the end of time there will always be some risk of nuclear weapons being used. Furthermore, if in the future there was a serious conflict between two major powers who had done away with their nuclear weapons but who still possessed the knowledge of how to make them—a knowledge that can never be eradicated—there could be a major push to nuclear re-armament with all the risks that such competitive re-armaments have carried in the past.
The second fact is that nuclear weapons are not just ordinary weapons on a large scale. They have the capacity to destroy whole civilisations in a few minutes. There is a difference of kind not just degree between them and all other means of destruction. It has been one of the strengths of the peace movement, of which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is a distinguished representative, that it has continually kept before the

665
mind of the public this horrific fact. Yet the implication of this has not always been grasped. It is quite simply that war between two powers who both possess a nuclear arsenal could never be rational. It could never conceivably be in the interests of a country to go to war against another nuclear power for, however quickly and decisively it struck, with the assured second strike retaliation available to the enemy totally unacceptable damage would always be inflicted on itself. This is what has been accurately described as the Copernican revolution in the use of armed force. It leads to the familiar nuclear paradox that these uniquely appalling weapons systems have a uniquely sobering effect on governments considering war as an instrument of policy. If the world's political system remains as it is now—a tempered anarchy of competing nation states—then, as Sir Michael Quinlan has put it, the abolition of nuclear weapons would purport to "re-rationalise warfare".
As a Christian I cannot resign myself to the world staying as it is for ever. I believe in the Kingdom of God and the coming of God's just and gentle rule when all will be transformed and human beings will live in communities of trustful mutuality. Furthermore, as a Christian I cannot simply wait for that Kingdom to come. I pray for it daily and believe that even now there are signs of that coming Kingdom, when suspicions are dispelled, barriers broken down and peace takes hold.
What I cannot do is kid myself that this Kingdom is here in its fullness. This Advent season reminds the Church that we live between times—between the time of Christ's life, death and resurrection when the power of evil and death was in some decisive sense broken and the flag of the Kingdom was planted on this earth, and the time of his coming again when his humility will be revealed in all its glory and all will be irradiated with the divine presence. Between the times, where we now live, there is an inescapable tension between what is necessary to achieve some kind of order in a recalcitrant world and the absolute ideal of the Kingdom. The Church has had to wrestle with this tension in every age, and Augustine, Luther and Reinhold Niebuhr have made their own distinctive contributions to how we can best live with it. It is, I believe, a tension that is inescapable. It means on the one hand that we have to face the world as it is and try to achieve some semblance of order in a system of competing nation states, some of them driven by considerations of aggrandisement and some led by foolish or wicked rulers. On the other hand, we can never rest content with that. The absolute ideal of the Kingdom continually beckons to transform what we have into what will be. That is why the concept of a nuclear free world which we are debating today remains a proper aspiration.
But a nuclear free world in which the present political system remained unchanged could be a more dangerous world than we have it at the moment. What is necessary is not just a nuclear free world but a radically changed political order. It means, in effect, having on the world stage what we have in democracies like our own; namely, a central authority which all acknowledge and which has the power to implement its decisions. We are, sadly, a long way from that. The world remains a loose system of nation states with different perspectives and
666
potentially conflicting interests. The United Nations exists but as yet has neither the authority nor the power to act as a universal policeman. It is not able to render powerless the major players in a conflict. In the world as we have it at the moment nuclear weapons, terrible as they are, still have a unique role in making parties to a conflict that possess them think again and again before taking the conflict further. This means that we have to proceed cautiously. But it does not mean that there is nothing we can do to make the world a safer place. There are a number of good suggestions around; for example; first, there is ample scope to reduce the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems, bringing the former under direct control and verification, as many of the latter already are. It is already time to begin work on a START 3 programme. New agreements, particularly those which enable the number of warheads to be verified, would reinforce long-term confidence. It would also be highly desirable to bring into the discussion non-strategic components as well as strategic ones.
Secondly, it would be important to relax, wherever they still remain, tense and costly high alert operational systems. The concept of "launch on warning" which was fundamental to the policy of deterrence in the Cold War is full of perils. On 25th January 1995 President Yeltzin's nuclear suitcase sounded an alert in response to a meteorological rocket fired from Norway. He had four minutes to decide if it was an American attempt to disable Russia's defences. It is important. therefore, to de-alert—that is, increase the response time of nuclear weapons by taking them off "hair trigger alert". It is also important to de-target strategic missiles, re-directing them towards neutral points in the ocean. Much of that has already been done. But it would also be possible to de-mount the vast majority of nuclear weapons; that is, remove nuclear warheads from their delivery systems. Physical separation obviously increases reaction times and induces confidence that nuclear arsenals are not on hair-trigger alert.
Thirdly, reducing the spread of nuclear deployments. Some concentration of remaining nuclear weapons would be helpful to control and verification as well as cost saving. Fourthly, it is important to exchange information more frequently and openly about nuclear armouries, and, in particular, about the best practice and the safety of storage for their handling and management and perhaps design. In the world as it is at the moment, where there is no open conflict between the major powers but in which nuclear weapons continue to exist, transparency should be given a very high priority, and such transparency is possible. As Sir Hugh Beach has put it:
"The reductions in warheads already carried out unilaterally by Britain and France could be internationally entrenched, the remaining inventories declared and made subject to the same sort of verification as Russia and America are prepared to apply mutually under the START treatise. At a later stage Chinese holdings could also be brought into account… Britain could take the lead if it could but break out of its prevailing cult of secrecy."
Fifthly, entrenching still more durably the norm against any nuclear testing; sixthly, constraining further the production of nuclear weapon materials. At the

667
moment the Conference on Disarmament is deadlocked on that issue and it is very much hoped that progress can be made soon.
Seventhly, bringing under more assured account and control the nuclear systems of the former Soviet Union. It is clearly important to seal off any possible leakage of nuclear expertise to possible terrorists or proliferator states. Western aid has been given for this purpose and will continue to be needed. Eighthly, developing further on an international basis, the tools and systems of information collection related to nuclear weapons and their disposal. The example of Iraq underlines how difficult that task is, and obviously maximum international co-operation and sharing of expertise is important.
Ninthly, strengthening the various instruments which were put together to prevent or impede proliferation. Tenthly, easing any political friction by underscoring that remaining armouries are not directed against particular adversaries. If nuclear weapons are to be retained for the time being as a kind of low-key insurance, then the maximum political reassurance can and must be given that their presence does not imply adverse assumptions about any particular country.
Eleventhly, consolidating and perhaps further extending nuclear weapon-free zones. And, lastly, your Lordships will be pleased to hear, exploring more fully the contribution which military defence systems might be able to make to diminishing still further any residual nuclear risk. That is a contentious area, particularly in respect of any implication it might have for the ABM Treaty. But debate on that could at least be kept alive.
None of those suggestions is, of course, original. But they represent a consensus among some of those who have thought longest and hardest about those issues. It would be tragic if people so focused on the aspiration of a nuclear-free world that they were distracted from putting the necessary thought, energy and resources into those practical steps which would actually reduce the risk of a nuclear explosion in the real world in which we live now. Progress has been made in recent decades, most notably with the non-proliferation treaty and the containing of nuclear states to a much lesser number than was once predicted. Further steps can and must be taken to reduce risk, create political confidence and move towards a different kind of world.
Sir Michael Quinlan in his recently published RUSI Whitehall paper, Thinking about Nuclear Weapons, puts the position better than anyone I know. He wrote:
"The continued retention of nuclear armouries on a limited and transparent scale in the hands of a few internationally-ratified possessors helps to seal off any possibilities of armed conflict among advanced states; it reduces the incentive to clandestine acquirers, since it diminishes whatever leverage they might have hoped to seize; and it offers an overshadowing in-reserve discouragement to intolerable state behaviour of other extreme kinds. It is entirely possible to pursue the extensive and valuable agenda that is available for further reducing the scale, salience, costs and risk of nuclear weapons whilst still benefiting from the underlying contribution which they uniquely make to security in any world at all like today's. That is to align policy with the grain of reality".
668
A world in which all nuclear weapons had been disposed of, a world in which there was an international authority with the power to ensure that it remained free of such devices, would indeed be a better world than we have now. It remains a legitimate aspiration. But such a world implies a radical political transformation of the states system as we have it at the moment. In moving towards that world, governments have the awesome task of balancing one risk with another. As part of that process there are, I believe, good things going on, which need to be developed and strengthened; and other things, such as greater transparency, which could come about without risk and which would reinforce political confidence. I very much hope that the Government will be able to press forward on a whole range of those important issues.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate said, my noble friend chose the right time of year to raise a Question which touches on the very centre of the Christian concept of peace on earth and goodwill to all men. I was a little worried that he might be on the verge of conversion to the Catholic faith when he chose also to base his debate on a statement by the Pope's permanent representative at the United Nations.
The statement which my noble friend outlined to us was one with which all men of goodwill—that of course includes women of goodwill—of all faiths or none, can agree. During 15 years in your Lordships' House, I have discovered that it is possible for governments to shrug off difficult questions relatively easily if they are raised just once or twice. Results are achieved by those MPs and Peers who are prepared relentlessly to pursue their cause at the risk of becoming thought to be single-issue eccentrics. We can all think of a few of those among our ranks, but my noble friend is far from that, however many times he raises the issue. He acts as the conscience of the House by reminding us of the dangerous unfinished business that the continued existence of these weapons represents. Compared to him, and in the presence of the two noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Bramall, I feel ill-equipped to address the issue. When I listened to the right reverend Prelate, whose expertise on this subject is remarkable, I felt myself to be a small voice.
Archbishop Martino's statement raises the uncomfortable truth that mankind spends a truly colossal proportion of its productive capacity on weapons of all kinds. It is a sum sufficient to rid the world of serious poverty if it were diverted to human development. Although nuclear weapons have the capacity to destroy life on earth as we know it, they cost just a small proportion of that total expenditure. However, they remain the ultimate weapon. They have not been used for 52 years, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but are still present in large numbers in the USA and Russia and in smaller numbers in Britain, France, China, India and probably Israel and at one time South Africa. As the right reverend Prelate said, the number is probably smaller than we might have feared.

669
Several other countries are on the verge of developing their nuclear weapons capacity. We know how close Iraq came to making its nuclear weapon. When countries have civil nuclear power they have already passed the most difficult technical barrier on the road to developing the nuclear weapon. However, sophisticated verification techniques are able to detect the work carried out on the final stage. The fact that nuclear power can act as the basis for weapons technology is the strongest argument for at least temporarily halting the development of civil nuclear power. That is a pity because we all know that it could make a major difference to global warming if only it could be made safe.
Archbishop Martino said:
"During the acrimonious years of the cold war…the international community felt powerless to stop the relentless build-up of nuclear weapons. But now, in the post cold-war era, characterised by new partnerships, the international community cannot shield itself from the assault on life itself that nuclear weapons represent".
An indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was achieved two years ago, but, sadly, Pakistan, India and Israel were not among the signatories. However, the non-nuclear states hope for a stronger commitment by nuclear weapons states to Article 6 which hinds them to work towards reducing and eventually phasing out their own nuclear weapons.
Despite considerable progress by Russia and the United States in reducing the number of warheads and the partial implementation of START 2, can my noble friend tell us how far START 2 has progressed and whether we are thinking about START 3? It seems to be a laboriously slow process, although two weeks ago in a throw-away remark, President Yeltsin said that he would unilaterally eliminate one-third of his warheads. That remark was quickly denied by his spokesperson. Neither the United States nor Russia seem to have fully accepted that the Cold War is over or that the continued existence of these weapons is as much a danger to themselves as to possible adversaries.
It seems to me that there is still a hangover from the Cold War and the belief that a nation's international influence is strengthened by the possession of a nuclear deterrent. As the Archbishop's report points out, there has been useful progress in reducing the level of conventional forces in Europe. That must be a recognition of the fact that there is little likelihood of a major war in Europe. A useful chemical weapons treaty has been agreed, as has a comprehensive test ban treaty. More recently, there was the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines. If such progress can be achieved with less destructive previously "legal" weapons—though there is still a very long way to go, particularly with the international arms trade—it should be possible to speed up the countdown to elimination of the ultimate weapon.
What further initiatives are we taking through the United Nations or other channels to encourage the one remaining superpower, and the previous other superpower to move more swiftly? What progress is being achieved towards drawing up the terms of a binding nuclear weapons convention with targets for reductions and the eventual complete elimination to be
670
achieved by certain dates? I am aware, of course, that it is no longer the policy of the Labour Party or the Government unilaterally to give up our nuclear weapons. It is far better, if possible, to have effective multilateral agreements. But while accepting that that is the case, I suggest that there is still a very large body of opinion in this country and in the wider world which would like to see the United Kingdom in the forefront of nations working much more actively towards the goal of total elimination of nuclear weapons.
Although we have fallen behind in the international competition for the highest GDP per head, we still have a very influential international position—"punching above our weight", to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd—not only because we are a permanent member of the Security Council but because of the respect in which our spokesmen at the United Nations and at many international bodies are held. I shall be interested to hear from my noble friend in what way Her Majesty's Government are pushing the agenda forward.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I intervene in this short debate not because there is a great deal new to be said about the subject but because since the end of the Cold War there have been alarming signs of a resurgence in unilateralism. It is as though there is a new hankering after Greenham Common and the Aldermaston march and rituals of that kind which I hoped we had put behind us. It is also important to place this debate on the United Nations in a broad political and strategic context. Perhaps it is most important to ensure that the record on some of these issues is kept straight. There is sometimes a tendency to misquote or, to put it politely, to misunderstand the requirements of some of the international treaties concluded in the past 50 years.
I declare an interest of a kind. I was chairman of Vickers Shipbuilders during the whole of the manufacture of the four Trident submarines which now constitute our nuclear deterrent. However, I have no such connection now and noble Lords who know me will be aware that my views have not changed substantially on this matter for the past 30 years.
Those views prompt me to offer some comments. First, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, should single out as the basis for his speech the speech of the permanent observer for the Holy See. Perhaps I may point out as a small matter of accuracy that Archbishop Martino is not a representative or a delegate but an observer of the United Nations. He is an observer of the Holy See. His speech was made in the First Committee of the United Nations in October as part of the normal proceedings of the United Nations in disarmament matters. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that Archbishop Martino called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. But so, too, did the representatives of Myanmar—known better to some of us as Burma—Poland, Australia, Croatia, Uruguay, Bangladesh and South Africa. In one day all those representatives made virtually the same speech. None of them, including the representative of the Holy See—the Pope's observer whose speech I have studied with great

671
care—advanced any new arguments whatever to support their case. The arguments were those that have been put forward over and over again for generations.
Indeed, I was interested to note that the archbishop's speech contained a view which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, repeated tonight: nuclear weapons cannot be justified. I can only say to the noble Lord and, if he were here, to the archbishop that that is a view not by any means held unanimously in the Roman Catholic hierarchy. I have heard an archbishop explain to me the doctrine of conditional intent in which he pointed out that there would be some occasions when the threat to use nuclear weapons might be justified.
But there were no new arguments in New York, because there are no new arguments about this. The debate is depressingly familiar to anyone who has followed these matters, as I have, since I was the British Minister at the disarmament negotiations in the 1960s. There has always been a clear intellectual and ideological gulf between the nuclear powers, whose aim and policy has been to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the non-nuclear and non-aligned countries and their supporters in the West who pressed constantly for the elimination of nuclear weapons from the arsenals of the major powers. It has always been the case; we have been here before; there is nothing new.
It was against the background of that straightforward clash of interests and ideologies that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was signed in the 1960s. That treaty is so often misrepresented and misquoted in debates and discussion on arms control and disarmament. Indeed, in the First Committee debate to which we are addressing our minds this evening, there was an interesting example of that. In calling for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, the representative of Western Australia told the committee that,
"the nuclear weapon states were obligated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime to reverse the Cold War accumulation of nuclear weapons, as a necessary prelude to their elimination".
I repeat that phrase,
"as a necessary prelude to their elimination".
That is simply not true. The relevant article of the non-proliferation treaty—and I hope that the House will indulge me if I quote it in extenso—states:
"Each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective control".
Your Lordships will note that that refers to nuclear disarmament. It makes no mention at all of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. There is a clear and important, if subtle, distinction between the two. It is an important distinction. I am especially anxious that it should be understood because I was largely responsible, with my British delegation in Geneva, for drafting Article 6. Yet that has now come to be prayed in aid by the anti-nuclear lobby and quoted as an undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to dispose completely of their nuclear weapons. That is not the position of the nuclear powers in the disarmament negotiations. Their position is and always has been that that can be achieved only
672
within the context of general and complete disarmament under international control. That state of affairs, as the right reverend Prelate said, is much to be desired. But I fear it is as remote from practical politics as it ever was.
It is worth pointing out that in pursuance of Article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, there has been very substantial nuclear disarmament. The major powers, especially the United States and the Soviet Union in their strategic arms reduction treaties, have substantially and, I should almost say from where I stand, drastically disarmed their nuclear stockpiles. It is important to place all that in a broad context, as the right reverend Prelate did, in what I thought was a remarkable and powerful speech. I conclude my intervention with a warning against the whole concept of what I shall call "single weapons disarmament"—the identification of some weapon or weapons system and seeking to eliminate it or remove it from the military scene. As the right reverend Prelate and Sir Michael Quinlan have said, that is in great danger of re-rationalising the whole concept of war as an instrument of policy.
But there is another matter to which the right reverend Prelate made reference. I would express it this way. The elimination of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or anti-personnel landmines is a process which, in the long-term strategic context, has no meaning whatever. It has been said before a thousand times, it will bear saying again, and the right reverend Prelate said it this evening: we cannot eliminate the knowledge of how to manufacture weapons, whether of mass destruction or of any kind. There is nothing to prevent any country or any group of people who wish to use those weapons manufacturing them secretly and using them against countries which have succumbed to the fallacy of single weapon disarmament.
In any event, as, again, I think Sir Michael Quinlan has said and as I say with great force and power, the removal of nuclear weapons as a deterrent—the so-called nuclear-free world—would place us all once again at the mercy of any aggressor with large and heavily-armed conventional forces.
Of course a case can be made for reductions in missiles and warheads. No one would deny that; indeed, it is going forward. However, I disagree in one respect with the right reverend Prelate on the matter of removing warheads from nuclear weapons as a matter of what he called "de-alerting." In my view, that would be a dangerous process. If warheads were removed from missiles and stored separately, when, in a state of emergency of some kind, a government sought to bring them together again—and that would be known immediately to any potential enemy with serious intelligence capabilities—it would be enormously destabilising and provocative. I warn very strongly against the seductive idea of de-alerting systems by taking the warheads away from the missiles.
Although I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and for the consistency and passion with which he has approached the subject of nuclear disarmament, I genuinely believe that the elimination of nuclear weapons and the idea of a nuclear-free world is based on an over-simplified

673
concept of international relations. I share entirely the view of the right reverend Prelate that until the whole nature of international relations has changed and the nation state ceases to be the fundamental building block of the international power structure and until we remove the possibility of war as an instrument of policy, to begin the business of single weapon disarmament, of tinkering with the panoply of weapons in the hope that that will in some way reduce the dangers, is manifestly over-simplified and unwise.
I am encouraged to note that in this country we appear to have a clear bipartisan policy in that respect. The present Government, in line with their manifesto, are firmly committed to the maintenance by this country of an effective nuclear deterrent. That was the position of the previous Conservative Government. That is a prudent, realistic policy and long may it continue.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. I must advise the House that I found the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, very interesting and erudite; but I am intrigued to think that he has not changed his views in the past 30 years. Bearing in mind a number of things which have happened over the past 30 years, I wonder whether it may be useful to the House to find out how my views have changed over the past 30 years.
My political life started in 1962 at the height of the Cuban missile crisis. At the tender age of 15 I decided that I would take some control over my life and try to prevent myself and my fellow human beings from being blown off the face of the earth. Therefore I joined CND. Having been an active member in that organisation for a number of years, I then became troubled because I realised that I was not a pacifist and it appeared to me that the whole raison d'être of CND was as a pacifist organisation. I left CND and to try to ease my troubled mind I started to study military history and the history of military campaigns. I was amazed at what I learnt. I am only self-taught and I have not engaged in any professional course of study of military history. But one of the things I learnt was that it was not the bombing campaign across Europe by the United States Air Force and the RAF that brought an end to the war in Europe; the end of the war in Europe started at the battle of Kursk and finished when the Red Army took Berlin.
I also learnt that in the war in the Far East the Japanese were brought to a halt at Imphal and Kohima and that the Allied forces, who were predominantly American, had taken Okinawa and were precipitately planning to launch an invasion of the Japanese mainland before the nuclear weapons were dropped at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There is a school of thought that claims that the Japanese would have surrendered anyway without the dropping of those nuclear devices. However, there is also a school of thought that has held sway among the establishment in the western world since the end of the war that claims that it was utterly necessary to drop those nuclear weapons.
Following the public campaigns of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament which started in the 50s and have carried on to this day, it has become impossible for
674
political and military leaders around the world who had access to nuclear weapons, and were at times tempted to use them, to do so. My studies also revealed the terrible carnage that was wrought by poison gas during the First World War. That gas inflicted horrendous casualties. The effects of that gas lingered for many years afterwards not only in the bodies of those afflicted but also in the minds of their friends and relatives who suffered too. I discovered that there was a realisation on the part of military strategists that the use of poison gas conferred no military advantage. While most of the powers involved in the Second World War had the capacity to use poison gas, it was not used because it was of no military advantage.
I shall not go into a long explanation of various other reasons why I can stand here and declare myself not to be a pacifist but to be totally against nuclear weapons. If we look at what has happened over the past few years—not just the past 30 years—we see that the Cold War has ended. The fundamental justification of the Soviet Union, the United States of America, Britain and France, for having nuclear weapons disappeared almost overnight. It was reported just the other day that South Africa had the capacity to make nuclear weapons but decided not to do so. It effectively decided unilaterally to disarm itself of nuclear weapons.. That was the case with some other countries too, some of which were constituent parts of the former Soviet Union. It is interesting that that should happen because for years and years we have been told that we cannot disarm unilaterally on the nuclear front.
One of the things I learnt from the early experiences of the Thatcher government is that perceptions are vitally important in defence and military matters. The Argentinians invaded the Falklands because their perception of Britain's foreign and defence posture was such that they believed we were not concerned about what happened in that part of the world. They took as a signal our planning to decommission "Endurance". I hope that I have learnt from that—and I hope the current Government have learnt—that it is not possible in today's fraught and difficult world to take a unilateral step and say,"We as a major nuclear power will get rid of our nuclear weapons without any reference to what is happening among our allies in the rest of the world". Imagine the perception that everyone around the world would have if a new Labour government were to say that one of the first things they intended to do was to get rid unilaterally of their nuclear weapons. I believe that the Labour leadership of the past few years has learnt that lesson.
We now have a new Labour Government who are committed to saying to the rest of the world,"We are dedicated to having strong defence capabilities because we recognise that it is a prime duty of the government of this country to defend this country". However, we also have a manifesto commitment which states,
"When satisfied with verified progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations".
There has been a change in policy with the election of a new government on 1st May.

675
The previous government would never accept that it was even their far distant objective to get rid of nuclear weapons on a worldwide basis. Thanks to the good sense of the British people in electing a Labour government, we now have that as our ultimate objective. I am sure that that ultimate objective must be shared by the vast majority not only of the British people but peoples all around the world. I recognise that to get from here to there will be difficult. I shall not chide the Minister on the Front Bench to say what the Government will do about that now because I recognise that it will probably take a number of years of steady diplomacy. I hope also that our Government can learn from the important work that is being done by senior military figures in working out the mechanisms of how we can get from here to there, and that the Government will build on that work within the political arena and use our ethical foreign policy to form a basis on which we can achieve something that will make the name of Britain resound around the world as a decent and leading member of the world community.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, not only for giving us this opportunity to discuss this important subject in greater detail than we usually can in the margins of a defence or foreign affairs debate, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, for his persistence in ensuring that your Lordships did not forget that the issue exists.
My own position has long been that the only value that nuclear weapons have had since the Soviet Union developed them has been to deter a potential nuclear opponent from using his. To initiate the use of nuclear weapons against a nuclear opponent is to invite retaliation in kind which would be suicidal. If he strikes first, to retaliate would ensure further escalation. To use them against a non-nuclear opponent would, I believe, be morally and politically unacceptable.
We have lived with them so long that we are apt to forget what really horrible weapons they are—modern ones are much worse than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If that is so, and their only value is as a deterrent to their use by others, we should all be better off if they could be eliminated altogether.
The principal arguments against that, which we have heard today from the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, are, first, that they remain a general deterrent to war and to the use of other so-called weapons of mass destruction, that is chemical and biological weapons; secondly, that their use even against a non-nuclear state could be justified in certain circumstances, particularly if a combination of target and yield selected minimised the collateral effect; and, finally, that it is impossible to develop a verification system which would ensure that they had been, and remained, eliminated. So we are stuck with them and, as it seems that more states may acquire them, it is prudent that those who have them should keep them. Those are the serious arguments against elimination.
676
Let us take the first argument, that if they were eliminated we might see a return of conventional wars between the major industrial nations, like the two world wars of this century, made worse by modern weapons; and that the overwhelming virtue of nuclear weapons is that that now seems inconceivable. I will admit that I myself used to hold that view. When I was asked to be a member of the Canberra Commission—I was delighted to hear the right reverend Prelate recite almost all the commission's recommendations—I was not certain at that time that I was entirely in favour of total elimination. What convinced me was the argument—it may not be a new argument to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, but it was new to me—of comparative risk.
We should not be attempting—as we have done in the Chamber today—to compare the situation as it is today with one which might arise if, miraculously, all nuclear weapons were to disappear tomorrow. We should try and compare two future scenarios. The first scenario involves no serious attempt being made to eliminate nuclear weapons, with perhaps a reduction in US and Russian arsenals to about 1,000 each, and the other declared nuclear states staying much as they are. In that scenario, in, say, 25 to 50 years' time, what may have happened? May there not by then be several more declared, certainly more undeclared, nuclear states, some with less reliable and sophisticated methods of control than those hitherto exercised by existing nuclear weapon states? The risk of either the intentional or the accidental explosion of nuclear weapons in such a scenario will surely have increased. The chances of maintaining an effective non-proliferation regime will surely have been reduced.
Let us compare that with the scenario which the Canberra Commission recommended. Starting with a genuine commitment by the United States and Russia, based on a conviction that it was in their own interests to do so, they would have reduced their arsenals, stage by verified stage, to the point at which those two major nuclear powers decided that the risks of taking the final step to elimination would be less than the risks of retaining nuclear weapons. Of course the United States and Russia would not make that decision unless they had brought other nuclear weapon states, declared and undeclared, along with them and were satisfied that the verification system they had developed during the process of reduction—and they must develop it; no one else can do it for them—was valid and would remain so for the final step and beyond. The process of getting that far would itself be a formidable confidence-building measure.
Risks, of course, will be entailed in moving to and eventually establishing elimination, but whether those risks will be greater or smaller than not taking that step can only be judged at that time. If they are then judged greater, the step will not be taken. But remaining at a fairly low level of nuclear weapons for some time would undoubtedly be an unstable situation.
The Canberra Commission did not ask anyone to take that final decision now. What we were asking was that the United States and Russia, as the leading nuclear powers, should genuinely decide that because success in that quest could eventually lead to a safer world for

677
them and everyone else, while failure to make the attempt could lead to a more dangerous one, they should commit themselves to it while the relations between them are fairly relaxed. If they move in that direction and put anything like the effort into it that they have put into creating and maintaining their nuclear arsenals, including into establishment of the verification process (and that will need a lot of effort), others will be bound to follow.
The risks involved in elimination, and the move towards it, must be compared not only with the risks involved in the possible continued existence of nuclear weapons, but also with the risks of the things which nuclear weapons are expected to prevent: renewed wars between the major industrial nations and the use of chemical or biological weapons. Under the shadow of nuclear weapons, and one must admit that it was under that shadow, the idea of engaging in wars, to use Clausewitz's words, "as a continuation of state policy", political or economic, has undoubtedly been abandoned by states who had thought of it in that way earlier in the century. It would he rash to dismiss the possibility of it entirely, particularly in the Far East, where there are potentially serious causes of dispute between Russia, China and Japan. But the question to be answered is this. What is the risk of such wars occurring, and, if they do. of the suffering they might cause in comparison with the potential risks arising from the continued existence of and probable proliferation in the possession of nuclear weapons?
The same reasoning must be applied to deterrence against the use of chemical and biological weapons. There is no doubt that there is a serious risk of their being used, and that their use could cause great suffering. The Henry S. Stimson Center in the United States has recently published a comprehensive study of the subject by Dr. Victor Utgoff, which I commend to your Lordships. His conclusion is that it is unwise for the United States to rely on the threat of nuclear retaliation as a deterrent against the use of these weapons. First, it is uncertain. There will always be strong inhibitions against the actual use of nuclear weapons in retaliation, whether or not the perpetrator himself has nuclear weapons. Secondly, and connected with the first reason, is the difficulty in selecting targets. Those which might be connected with the opponent's chemical or biological warfare capability would inevitably involve collateral damage to the civilian population, while ammunition stocks and methods of delivery would be more appropriately dealt with by conventional weapons. Thirdly, it is possible, without great expense, to develop protective measures not only for armed forces but also for the civilian population of areas assumed to be threatened. A better and more convincing counter to the threat is a combination of developing effective verification and enforcement measures, open development of effective protective measures, and convincing determination to retaliate to any use by effective conventional attack. There should be no ambiguity about that as there is about nuclear retaliation.
678
My argument, therefore, is that the risks of not trying to eliminate nuclear weapons are greater than the risks of trying to do so. The difference between the Canberra Commission and the opponents of elimination is a difference in assessment of risk. The commission believed that a situation in which a few privileged states retain nuclear weapons, asserting that they are essential to their security while attempting to deny them to others, some of whom face much more real or potential threats from their neighbours, cannot indefinitely be sustained. It must lead to a dangerous proliferation.
Our opponents' case is that the danger of proliferation has consistently been exaggerated and that it is both possible and desirable to maintain the status quo, but with a reduction of Russian and American arsenals to about 1,000 warheads. The Government state that elimination is their aim but they show no more sign of trying to move in that direction than their predecessors, in spite of the attitude of several Ministers and supporters in the past. Let them demonstrate that they mean what they say by at least adopting the immediate steps which the Canberra Commission recommended: taking nuclear forces off alert, removing warheads from their delivery vehicles and trying to agree with other nuclear states an undertaking not to be the first to use them and not to use them against a non-nuclear state. Whether or not we in this country should keep our own nuclear warheads is a different question. Of course, if we succeed in eliminating nuclear weapons altogether, ours would go as part of the process. The Canberra Commission envisaged China and ourselves joining in the process when the United States and Russia had got down to about the 1,000 mark.
But I personally would like to see us getting rid of our nuclear weapons now because I believe them to he unnecessary and a waste of money which would be better spent elsewhere in the defence field. As the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert's, reply to my Question on the 9th December revealed, maintaining our nuclear weapon capability and the means to deliver it costs a lot more than most people realise and most government spokesmen have ever admitted to.
Even if you are a believer in the usefulness of nuclear weapons, we do not need them, as we are fully covered by the American nuclear umbrella. I cannot envisage a situation in which we were threatened with attack, either by nuclear or other means, and the threatening nation did not have to take into account the reaction of the United States. Nor can I envisage a scenario in which we would use a nuclear weapon when the Americans had decided not to use theirs. And if they had decided to do so there would be no advantage in us firing one off well. Justifications like "weapons of last resort", "second centre of decision" and "fundamental basis of our security" are meaningless when you begin to analyse them. What could be that "last resort" when it would make sense to use them? If the Russians had somehow reached Calais it would not be to our advantage to use them. It would be an act of suicide—like Hitler in his bunker but worse, because it would be committing the whole nation to destruction.

679
There is another good reason for giving them up. Our retention of them and all the reasons invented for doing so could be applied to any independent nation, and even more justifiably to those who have neighbours who are hostile or potentially so, which we are fortunate not to have. They are an encouragement to proliferation and not, as some suggest, a counter to it. Our nuclear weapons are useless to us as military weapons they cannot conceivably be used. We do not need them as a so-called deterrent, and I urge the Government to consider very carefully how to set about changing their policy which, like so many others, is inherited from their predecessors.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, perhaps I should make clear at the outset that I speak on this subject as someone who, in the light of a number of factors relating to the international scene and our own defence effort, has changed his mind. I therefore find myself largely in agreement with my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver and perhaps, and I hope unusually, at some odds with my noble friend Lord Chalfont, despite the powerful speech that he made.
In the past, as someone who over 50 years ago had in the space of a few months seen for myself the ruins of both Hamburg and Hiroshima and found the former, destroyed by conventional means, in some ways more disturbing, I long held the view that it was all wars, and not just nuclear wars, which had if humanly possible and with honour to be prevented or at least limited or curtailed at the earliest opportunity. That has been the basis of our defence policy over the years. So I accepted, like the right reverend Prelate, that the mere presence of nuclear weapons and even what came to be called "the balance of terror" did have a part to play during the Cold War era in the deterring of any aggression and indeed of any sort of military adventurism by signalling such a dire warning on what such things might lead to. I believed that these weapons made a contribution to achieving that matchless blessing of 50 years of peace in Europe since World War II. Although with hindsight I do not think it would have changed the course of history one iota if we in this country had not had our own independent so-called deterrent, bearing in mind that the chances of our being determined to use it or even threaten its use when the Americans were not prepared to do so were always remote to say the least, I could see the rationale and the argument, particularly in the political sense of international influence, for making some significant contribution to the overall NATO deterrent on which, as I know well as a divisional commander in Germany in the 1970s, the whole NATO defence plan would have ultimately had to be based.
I also believed that if you were going to make a contribution it ought to be a credible and viable one. I therefore supported the replacement of Polaris, which was vulnerable and past its shelf life, by the modern Trident, designed to compete with the most sophisticated and powerful air defences, although, since
680
Trident was so much more efficient than Polaris, I never saw the need for the fourth boat nor for the excessively short response time permanently demanded.
But now, looking at the world's scene, the authority and legitimacy of the Security Council, the world's correct preoccupation with the environment and what we are doing to our world, the economic and social problems of waging aggressive war, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear restraint, and the power of the media and of public and world opinion generally, I cannot see any situation in which this country would authorise the use of our own nuclear weapons on another country—not in the East, even post-Yeltsin, nor in the Middle East, nor anywhere. Against a strong country, people in glass houses do not throw stones and against a weak one it is, I hope, just not our style.
In a sense of course the weapons used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki—as my noble and gallant friend pointed out, weapons of tiny size compared with today—did make the point to an ignorant and innocent world and in that instance saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the process. But since then the weapons have been virtually unusable, except perhaps, as Winston Churchill said, as a "response from the grave", when it really would hardly matter. You may say—and indeed I have said it myself—that one of the reasons that Saddam Hussein did not put chemical weapons in his Scud missiles, of which he was capable, may have been a faint suspicion that the United States (not us, but the United States) might have used a nuclear weapon against him. This inhibiting, awesome retaliatory threat of nuclear weapons has now largely been overtaken by the accuracy and power of conventional cruise missiles which can take out key targets and installations without the inhibiting massive loss of civilian life.
So I would say to your Lordships, whatever way you look at it, even if you take a different view, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont does and as to a certain extent the right reverend Prelate does, on the value of some nuclear weapons being in the West's armoury in a still dangerous and uncertain world, or you are keener than I am on a belt-and-braces capability for a million to one chance, it must be admitted that we in this country are greatly over-nucleared in the context of our over-tight defence expenditure. It amazes me that this Government of all governments who in the past adopted, to say the least of it, a most suspicious attitude to these weapons should have accepted the whole nuclear deterrent philosophy—one might almost say theology—without demur or question. The Secretary of State for Defence constantly gives the impression that, although literally everything else in the Defence Vote will be looked at most critically in the coming review, the nuclear deterrent is ring-fenced, off limits and sacrosanct.
If the subject was ever raised in the Ministry of Defence, the line usually taken was that, now that the capital expenditure had been made on the four hulls and missiles, the running costs were so low that the political advantages of being part of the so-called "nuclear club" were well worth the cost. So "We're here, because we're here, because we're here" has become established policy not to be questioned, even though many were prepared

681
to admit in private that if we were taking the decision now we would probably not have an independent deterrent at all, and certainly not one of the current size. But if, as the Minister so honestly admitted in reply to a question from my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver, the cost of maintaining our nuclear capability, including the full running costs of the Trident force, are in the order of £1 billion this year, surely, in view of the manifest weaknesses of our conventional forces, whose utility is clear and consistent—weaknesses in terms of manning, infantry manpower, medical services and sustainability in general, all of which the Government have so rightly criticised in the strongest possible terms—there must be better ways to spend that money. It must be a matter of military priorities to bring the programme into proper balance.
Nor, if we are serious about nuclear proliferation, can we expect much response from those who wish to own their own nuclear weapons for exactly the same reason as we have for so long justified ours, unless we show some example. And if we do show some example, then I think we can, and should, insist on some reciprocal act on their part. I hope that that would be the start of a proper process on all sides.
I urge the Government to put our nuclear deterrent under the same microscope as everything else in the strategic review so that we can keep our whole defence programme in proper balance. Quite apart from the moral viewpoint, savings here may produce just the amount of extra resources that we require to put right so many other things in the conventional field that so badly need doing.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I had intended to rise and say that, sadly, I did not feel that I could repeat the conventional congratulations to a noble Lord on introducing this type of debate and giving us the opportunity of discussing this subject. I had intended to speak in that manner because I did not, and still do not, feel that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has succeeded in adding anything new. He has repeated the arguments that have been made against nuclear armaments for at least the past 40 years.
However, I have been very startled and saddened by the speeches of the two noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Carver. I feel that they have totally misunderstood the nature and importance of nuclear weapons for world peace. I am especially glad that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said that he had changed his mind since the days when he was Chief of the Defence Staff. I am glad that he thought differently when he held that position. He referred to the "matchless blessing of our 50 years of peace".
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, talked about what would have happened and what steps could have been taken if the Russians had reached Calais. The point is that they did not reach Calais. They had no chance of reaching Calais because they knew of the overwhelming threat of nuclear retaliation, at a time when no country, not even America, would have been capable, in terms of conventional warfare, of retaliation in the face of an invasion of Germany and France as far as Calais.
682
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, used an old argument. We heard nothing new. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out that there was nothing new to be heard. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that he had not changed his views in 30 years. I am not in the least surprised, because the situation has not changed in the past 30 years. There is no longer a Cold War; but there are countries which may well have evil intent and which are in possession of nuclear weapons and sizeable conventional forces. They might well be persuaded to use them if the total threat of immediate retaliation did not exist. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said that that could never happen. I believe that, were the worst to happen, that could he wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, quoted Archbishop Martino. I thank the noble Lord for placing a copy of that speech in the Library; it was extremely difficult to get hold of. Archbishop Martino said that no weapon so threatens the peace of the 21st century as the nuclear weapon. He also says that,
"Nuclear weapons can destroy"—
I emphasise the word "can"—
"all life on the planet".
It is true, as noble and gallant Lords have said, that nuclear weapons are infinitely greater and more destructive than that used at Hiroshima. But there are also small "pocket" nuclear weapons which could be used and which would not destroy all life on the planet. I suggest to Archbishop Martino that there is no weapon that so achieves the peace of the second half of the 20th century, and will do in the 21st century, as the nuclear weapon.
Archbishop Martino was forced to admit the tragedy that more were killed by the use of short-range small weapons than by weapons of mass destruction. That he puts down to the continued growth of the arms trade. But he fails to recognise that nuclear weapons, which, because of the scale of destruction that they bring about, have never been used, are great contributors to the peace of the world.
The Archbishop uses much of his speech to condemn land-mines. That is a totally different question and not the subject of today's debate. But there can scarcely be modern weapons wider apart in concept than the nuclear bomb and the anti-personnel land-mine. In both cases, if the weapon concerned is to be wiped from the face of the earth, as many are trying to achieve, everybody will have to agree that it should happen, be prepared to set about it and get on with it unilaterally. All countries would have to be prepared to give up the advantages that they have gained, by having both the necessary material and the circumstances in which it can be used.
How are inspections to be carried out? The noble and gallant Lord said that verification was impossible. The advantages to a potential evil-doer are such that the temptations to have, maintain and hide a nuclear weapon are almost irresistible. A degree of goodwill is needed among all nations if what is sought by nuclear disarmers is to come about.
In the Cold War, the possession of nuclear weapons was vital to prevent those countries with massive conventional forces from attacking those who had not

683
got them. Today they are vital so that those smaller countries which have a nuclear potential or an aggressively minded conventional force know that they will be instantly destroyed if they use it.
It is sad that worthy and genuine seekers for peace, like the noble Lord and the Archbishop, continue to ignore the practicalities, or rather the impracticalities, of eliminating certain types of weapons, and nuclear weapons in particular.
Before the first world war in which he was killed, the novelist Saki wrote a short story in which two parents, being dedicated pacifists, gave their children models of J S Mill and Lord Shaftesbury so that they could play peace games and develop their social responsibilities. Of course, it did not work. The children instantly painted them red and renamed them Marshal Saxe and Napoleon and converted the workhouses into barracks. The noble Lord represents the worthy pacifist parents. The children, sadly, represent the nations of the world.
As the only speaker in this debate from these Benches, perhaps I should reiterate the views of this party on the possession of nuclear weapons. We have heard different views from the two noble and gallant Lords, and views much in concert with the views of both the main political parties from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The Benches opposite have confirmed their belief in the retention of nuclear weapons. Daniel has indeed come to judgment! It is scarcely necessary for me to add anything to my views and the Government's policy.
Although deeply concerned at the prospect of cost-cutting in the strategic defence review, the Conservatives have a defence policy underpinned by nuclear weapons which provide the ultimate guarantee of security. Anyone who believes, as the noble and gallant Lords seem to believe, that if we totally abandon our nuclear policy the Treasury will allow the Ministry of Defence to have all the money it costs for conventional weapons, is very sadly misleading himself.
Nuclear weapons uniquely ensure that aggression is not a national option for any country. It can reasonably be said that in the days of the Cold War it was those weapons alone which preserved peace in Europe. Now we have no Cold War, we no longer need the number of weapons which previously existed. This is recognised by all the political parties. By the end of 1998 we shall have 21 per cent. fewer warheads and nearly 60 per cent. less explosive power than we had in the Cold War. While we should not revive the infamous pre-war "10-year rule", we do not need the resources of 15 years ago.
The 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which was reviewed and extended indefinitely in 1995, was one of the main goals of Conservative defence policy. We vigorously support the comprehensive test ban treaty.
The Government put a commitment in their manifesto to retain Trident. In the past, Labour spokesmen have spoken of the need to preserve a minimum nuclear deterrent and I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that today, because anything less would be disastrous. I believe it unlikely that she will find time to
684
confirm the Government's commitment to a four-boat Trident fleet, but I can hope for it. I can also hope that she will confirm the last government's commitment in terms of the number of nuclear warheads and missile bodies.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I ask why the noble Lord chose to feature the speech of the papal representative in the title for the debate. It is dangerous to quote Stalin, but he had something when he said:
"The Pope: How many divisions has he?"
Stalin, like other dictators of whom there are still sadly many around the world, also knew what he would do with his nuclear weapons if he did get the opportunity of using them. It is by keeping our own weapons that the free countries ensure that they continue free and that relative peace is maintained. If it were the case that the countries of the world could only retain nuclear bombs or land-mines, it would be infinitely preferable to keep the bombs.
CND, Archbishop Martino, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and their friends are worthy but unrealistic. Sadly, we have heard their case many times before and there is little new in it. However, I have to say that there is a good deal new in what we heard from the mouths of the noble and gallant Lords and I am saddened and startled by it. No doubt we shall get it all again in some further debate and again there will really be nothing new. We should keep nuclear weapons. It is the policy of this Government and of the Conservative Party to continue to work for the best interests and the peace of the world.
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for introducing the debate this evening. As ever, the noble Lord is indefatigable in ensuring that nuclear disarmament is kept at the forefront of our minds. However, even without his efforts, this is a matter which is very much a concern of the Government. We recognise that it is also a question in which there is a high level of public interest. In the Gallup Poll which was conducted in October this year, 87 per cent. of those questioned supported negotiations to prohibit nuclear weapons. We pay close attention to that. My honourable friend the Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for disarmament, Tony Lloyd, recently held a meeting with a large number of non-governmental organisations to hear their views on these and related issues.
The speech by Archbishop Martino to the United Nations' First Committee called for the world to move to the abolition of nuclear weapons through a universal, non-discriminatory ban with intensive inspection by a universal authority. It is a call which noble Lords will find mirrored in the Government's manifesto commitment to mutual, balanced and verifiable nuclear disarmament.
We fully agree with the Archbishop on the desirability of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, but I must say that not all the Archbishop's

685
arguments support his case equally. Nuclear weapons account for a tiny proportion of global military spending. They are not a factor at all in the spending of the vast majority of nations. They constitute a relatively small part of even the declining defence budgets of the nuclear weapon states.
In answer to one of the points made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in our case 90 per cent. of the £12 billion estimated procurement cost of the Trident programme has already been spent. Average running costs have been estimated at £200 million per annum over a 30-year in-service life. This forms only a very small percentage of the defence budget.
The abolition of nuclear weapons therefore offers no financial panacea, as the noble and gallant Lord suggested. The Government wish to see their global elimination because it is desirable in itself and not on the grounds of cost.
We are committed to arms control in all forms. The Archbishop referred to the Ottawa convention banning landmines. This Government are proud to have played their full part in the process that led to that agreement. We have now signed it and we hope to ratify it soon. We are also party to the chemical and biological weapons conventions he mentioned, and have been leading international efforts in Geneva to strengthen the latter. On 28th July we introduced new arms export criteria which made good our pledge to press for responsible arms trading.
As one of the five nuclear weapon states, Britain has a key role to play in the process of nuclear disarmament. As I have already made clear to noble Lords on a number of occasions, we intend to use our position to work for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. To achieve that, we will press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions. Once satisfied with verified progress towards our goal, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in the multilateral negotiations. It will involve, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, reminded us, steady diplomacy and painstaking negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked what we were doing to make good our commitments at the moment and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked what effective progress the Government are making. At a global level much progress has already been made towards nuclear disarmament especially through bilateral strategic arms reduction talks, or START. That has led to the United States and Russia agreeing significant reductions of their nuclear arsenals which are the world's largest numbering many thousands of warheads. Though outside these talks, Britain has played its full part in working for nuclear disarmament. We have unilaterally promised to withdraw our free-fall nuclear bomb by the end of March 1998. I draw that particularly to the attention of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who suggested that Britain ought to be doing more to set an example. We are setting that example. We have unilaterally promised to withdraw our free-fall nuclear bomb, but that will leave us with a single nuclear deterrent system. We have also taken a leading role in the negotiations of essential precursors
686
of global nuclear disarmament, such as the comprehensive test ban treaty. This treaty, which ends nuclear weapons test explosions for all time, has been the major global advance of recent years. It has been signed by over 140 states, including all the nuclear weapon states. We hope to ratify in the new year, becoming the first of the nuclear weapons states to do so. It has created a strong moral and political norm against testing. The international monitoring system, to be set up under it, will in due course provide an additional practical deterrent to nuclear testing, ensuring that any breaches will be detected. We and the international community will continue to work to persuade those states which have not signed, to do so as soon as possible.
Another success story of recent years has been the development of nuclear weapon free zones, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. We believe that such zones, freely arrived at by all the states of the region concerned, can make a valuable contribution to global and regional peace and security. The UK has already ratified the protocols to the treaties establishing zones in Latin America and the Caribbean, and in the South Pacific. Last year we signed the protocols to the African nuclear weapon free zone and are working towards ratification. We are also trying (with other nuclear weapon states) to find a solution that will enable us to sign the protocol to the treaty creating a zone in south east Asia. We continue to consider proposals for new zones, such as the initiative to establish a zone in central Asia.
Through the protocols to nuclear weapon free zone treaties, we and other nuclear weapon states give the parties to those treaties negative security assurances, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, reminded us. These commit us not to use nuclear weapons against these states, unless they attack us in alliance or association with a nuclear weapon state. We have also made a unilateral statement extending such an assurance to all non-nuclear-weapon state parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Several further steps towards disarmament have been suggested during this debate—particularly by the right reverend Prelate in a number of different ways—and by such bodies as the Canberra Commission. Many of these are being examined in the strategic defence review and elsewhere.
This examination will cover all aspects of our nuclear policy including warhead numbers, greater transparency and de-alerting measures, in the way that the right reverend Prelate suggested it should. If we conclude that circumstances allow us to make changes in any of these areas we will be prepared to do so, while ensuring that we retain an effective deterrent.
One of the most common suggestions is that a timetable be agreed with a date by which nuclear weapons will be eliminated, although I know that Archbishop Martino did not call for this in his recent speech. Bearing in mind the complexities of disposal and verification, we remain to be convinced of the wisdom of a pre-set timetable.

687
I should repeat our commitment to a fissile material cut-off treaty. We believe it would be an important step towards eventual nuclear disarmament, as well as strengthening the non-proliferation regime. And we will work hard to bring about the start of negotiations on this issue in the conference on disarmament.
This Government welcome the International Court of Justice's recognition, repeated by the Archbishop, of the importance of obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which includes a commitment to nuclear disarmament by all states parties.
The court was unable to conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake. We have always maintained that the use of nuclear weapons would be subject to the requirements of international law applicable in armed conflict, but that the legality of any specific use or threat of use would depend on all the circumstances at the time. The United Kingdom's nuclear deterrence policy remains entirely defensive: we would only ever consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence, which includes the defence of our NATO allies.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked why the United Kingdom voted against the Malaysian resolution at the UN on the International Court of Justice advisory opinion. We voted against the resolution because of its selective quotation of the advisory opinion and its unrealistic call for time-bound multilateral negotiations. However, we remain committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament and continue to hold the International Court of Justice in high regard.
I add that we supported resolutions tabled by Japan on the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons and by the United States of America and Russian on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations. We also supported resolutions on nuclear weapon free zones in central and southern Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. I hope that gives the noble Lord some assurance. I was a little perplexed by his notion that there were differences in the policy between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence on those issues. The noble Lord raised this question specifically in an oral Question on 10th December. I hope that I was unequivocal in assuring him at that time that there was no withdrawing from the Government's policy as stated in our manifesto and as supported by many people in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked about President Yeltsin's remarks in Stockholm. President Yeltsin's statement has since been clarified by a spokesman who stated that no reductions were imminent. We would of course welcome any further reduction in Russia's nuclear stockpile in particular to implement the pledge to reduce their tactical nuclear weapons made by President Yeltsin in 1992.
I was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about START 2. START 2 is not yet in force because it has not yet been ratified by Russia. President Yeltsin
688
introduced the treaty to the Duma and Russia and the US agreed revisions of the timetable for its implementation and demarcation under the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Those are expected to resolve the doubts expressed by opponents of the treaty in Russia and to smooth the way for verification.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, expressed doubts about the Government's policies in this area, in particular in relation to implementation of the Canberra Commission's goals. This Government strongly support the Canberra Commission's goals of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Some of the recommendations of the Canberra Commission have already been achieved; for example, the comprehensive test ban treaty which created such a strong norm against nuclear testing. The United Kingdom will have only one single nuclear weapon system in 1998. We believe it is making significant progress. It is bound to be painstaking; but, nonetheless, it is progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, raised questions in answer to some of the points made by the right reverend Prelate in relation to detaching warheads from missiles. Her Majesty's Government agree with that point. We believe that to detach warheads from missiles would be impractical, as he suggested, because of the nature of our deterrent. As Trident is a single submarine-based system, there would be significant difficulties in detaching our warheads from missiles while maintaining the credible deterrent to which Her Majesty's Government are committed while we are going through the process I described.
The noble Lord also spoke about the importance of Trident. However, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, reminded us of the Government's position over this. We have said that we will retain Trident, but retain it while we work for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. It is a very different policy from that of the previous government, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, reminded us. Our overall objective is of course a strong defence against the new security challenges in the post-Cold War world. We have recently ordered new missile bodies in order to ensure that Trident is kept up to date. But that does not mean that our goal is not clear: to continue to press for multilateral, balanced and verifiable reductions in these weapons. Our goal of the final elimination of those weapons remains clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that there were no new arguments. He was not surprised that there were no new arguments. Neither am I surprised that there are no new arguments. It is indeed an old argument, but it is an old argument with a great deal of new energy behind it, a new energy supported by the British public. He may have found it a depressing argument, but many do not. They find it a genuine prospect for the eventual elimination of these appalling weapons of mass destruction—a very important and exhilarating prospect. It will indeed be painstaking; it will indeed be difficult; it will indeed demand verification; but it is important and it is desirable. The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Bramall, showed that this Government's policy is very, very different from that of their predecessors.

689
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for allowing me another opportunity to present—I hope with much greater clarity than is possible in dealing with Questions in your Lordships' House—the Government's position on nuclear disarmament. I have taken note of all the points made. I hope that I have answered them. When I read through Hansard if I find that there are any points that still remain to be answered, I shall write to noble Lords.
In the seven months since the general election we have made steady progress on this issue. We shall continue on that course in line with the undertaking so clearly expressed in our manifesto. I conclude by referring to the remarks of Archbishop Martino's statement. He called for an unequivocal commitment to the abolition of nuclear arms. I am happy to repeat that this Government are committed to the global elimination of those nuclear weapons.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in her brilliant summary to this fascinating debate my noble friend has clarified the Government's position. I find it entirely satisfactory. I have a certain qualification about speed and direction; but, so far as concerns the objective, there is a growing feeling, which was exemplified by the speeches of the noble and gallant Lords who graced this occasion with their presence, that the world is moving towards making a distinction between weapons of mass destruction and weapons which can reasonably be used in war.
It is rather like a man in a house who quarrels with other members of his family. There is not much point in bringing down the whole house by using a weapon which has that effect. In a simple way that is why the distinction between weapons of mass destruction which threaten our world as it has never been threatened before and other weapons is made by those whose duty has been—and the duty of their successors might still be—to put those weapons into active use. There was an international meeting of generals from many countries, including Russia, at which the reluctance of people to initiate a process which might have the type of effect I have described was manifest. The world is moving in that direction.
Apart from the opening speech, the debate has been characterised by quite brilliant speeches. It should be printed and circulated widely. It would make good reading. I am grateful to noble Lords for taking part in the debate. I feel invigorated by it. I hope that that feeling is not confined to me—I do not believe that it is. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill [H.L.]
7.26 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is unusual for a measure of this kind to be introduced and
690
sponsored from the Cross Benches. First, it seeks to give effect to one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Relations between Central and Local government which I had the honour to chair and which reported unanimously on a cross-party basis in July last year. Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, indicated in a debate on an Unstarred Question on 23rd July this year (at col. 1500 of the Official Report) that since time had not been found for a Government Bill this Session, if I were to introduce a Private Member's Bill it would have government support. That is my justification. Before I go further, I must also declare an interest in that I am honorary president of the Local Government Association, which has welcomed the Bill.
This should be an important debate and there are a number of distinguished speakers taking part. I look forward with particular pleasure and interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. He will be speaking not only with his authority and experience as the leader of his own council but also as someone who over many years has taken a great interest in and spoken and written about good government and good practice and how to make local government more effective and more accountable. I am sure he will say things of great interest to us.
Before offering some comments on the main provisions of the Bill, perhaps I ought to try to answer the question: why do we want experimental arrangements in local government decision-taking arrangements? After all, the existing statutory committee structure is long established and people are used to it. Why do we want to change it? There are three rather different reasons. First, local authorities are very different in size and nature. What works well in one place does not necessarily work well in another. That is why the Council of Europe Charter of Local Self Government, which the present Government have signed, says in Article 6 that,
"without prejudice to more general statutory provisions, local authorities should be able to determine their own internal administrative structures in order to adapt them to local needs and ensure effective management".
At present, there are unnecessary constraints preventing our own local authorities doing just that.
The second reason is that over many years local government has become both more complex and more political. As a result, most major policy decisions are now taken not in the formal committee structure but in smaller political groups of the majority party. Yet the need subsequently to process these decisions through the formal committee structure both blurs accountability between the executive and representative processes and is also one of the things which led the Audit Commission recently to conclude that councillors spend far too much time in committees rather than with their community.
As long ago as 1993 a working party established by the then Secretary of State for the Environment and comprising representatives of both central and local government suggested that the pretence that all councillors have equal power and equal responsibilities

691
was no longer sustainable and that experiments in decision-taking arrangements which recognised that fact should be tried.
The third reason is that while there is widespread acceptance of the importance of local government itself, public interest in its actual processes is at an all-time low, which is reflected in the deplorably low turnout at local elections. The need for clearer accountability is matched by the need for democratic innovations which will encourage local people to exercise their democratic interest and authority over matters of direct concern to them. The Bill, however, is confined to ways of doing this through the arrangements for decision-taking by local authorities. Other possible ways of revitalising local democracy—for example, changes in voting arrangements—will have to await discussion in the context of the White Paper which the Government intend to publish next year.
Against those reasons for change, Clause 1(5) of the Bill sets out three overriding criteria for any experimental arrangements: first, that they should be likely to lead to decisions being taken in a more efficient and more accountable way; secondly, that they should be likely to lead to decisions being taken with greater regard to local government electors and other interested persons in the authority's area; and, thirdly, that they should include provisions for members of the authority—that means members of all political parties—to scrutinise the exercise of any functions to which the arrangements relate. Those three criteria underlie and inform the duties placed on councils, on the Secretary of State, on monitoring officers and on everyone else concerned in the Bill.
I wish to emphasise that the Bill is permissive and not prescriptive: no one would be forced to do anything. It would, however, allow authorities to apply to the Secretary of State for approval to operate an experimental scheme for a limited period and would enable him to make an order, subject to the negative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament, making temporary modifications to certain current legislation where these are necessary to allow the scheme to proceed and provided the criteria of efficiency, accountability and transparency are observed.
The Bill has 13 clauses of which the first three are the crucial ones. Clause 1, in addition to setting out the criteria to which I have referred, lists a menu of options which might improve the decision-making process but which are not permitted under current legislation. Broadly, these are the direct election of a mayor with executive functions from a single ward comprising the whole of the authority's area; arrangements to allow the appointment of executive or advisory committees, the membership of which does not conform to the existing requirements about political balance; arrangements to delegate the discharge of functions to individual members of the authority whether it is to lead members for particular issues or to an indirectly elected mayor; and arrangements for the appointment of scrutiny
692
committees to scrutinise any functions of the authority and in particular those subject to an experimental scheme.
There are variants of these broad categories which are spelt out in the Bill but I wish to emphasise one point. The Bill specifies that experiments may not include the discharge by an ordinary member or by an elected mayor of any functions which, but virtue of any enactment, may be discharged only by the authority itself or by an officer of the authority; for example the level of the local budget and council tax which have to be set by the full council.
The objective of any experiment would be to sharpen and make more accountable the decision-making process. I should, however, add a word about the proposal to allow experiments with committees whose membership might be from the majority party only. The argument, which was endorsed by the joint working party in 1993, to which I referred, is that this would make the decision-making process both more expeditious and more transparent. It would be more expeditious because it would avoid the cumbersome two-stage process, to which I referred, and more transparent because discussion in a committee composed only of the majority party would be brought within the formal decision structure with advice from officials, minutes which would be made available, in particular to an all-party scrutiny committee, and so on. I ought, however, to make one thing clear. It would not be the intention to approve an experiment which involved a departure from the normal requirements of political balance on committees unless it was accompanied by an all-party scrutiny committee to preserve and formalise the rights of minority parties.
Clause 2 contains the procedure to be followed by an authority which wants to submit an experimental scheme for approval and Clause 3, the procedure to be followed by the Secretary of State when he receives such an application. The clauses are somewhat detailed and technical, but they are important since the Secretary of State will need to know not only the objectives of the scheme and how it would meet local needs, but also how the arrangements between members and officers and between the executive and other members would work; how conflicts would be resolved; and what the safeguards for propriety and access to information would be, and so on. Noble Lords will also note that before reaching his decision the Secretary of State is required to consult the Audit Commission as well as the Local Government Association. Clause 10 requires the authority's head of paid service and monitoring officer to make an annual report on the effect of an approved scheme which will go to the Secretary of State.
The other clauses deal mainly with arrangements for extending or varying an experimental scheme and repeat much of what is in the first three clauses. I would like to emphasise one point arising from them. An experimental scheme could be approved for up to a maximum of eight years in the first place, and it could be extended only once, again subject to the negative resolution procedure, for up to a further four years. No further extension would be possible without primary legislation since it is not felt that the possible

693
modifications to existing legislation listed in the schedule to the Bill should be other than for a defined and temporary period. In other words, the whole purpose of the Bill is to allow certain temporary experiments and not to become a backdoor way of introducing long-term changes.
I do not suggest that any one of the options which would be permitted by the Bill, which applies only to England and Wales, is necessarily a panacea for revitalising local democracy. Indeed, an attempt to impose a uniform approach to structural reform at this stage might be a recipe for disaster. I am, however, convinced that, as the Select Committee strongly recommended last year, local authorities should be allowed to conduct pilot experiments subject to the safeguards proposed. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am well aware of the background that has led to this Bill and I welcome the opportunity that it gives us all to raise the profile of a very important part of our democratic process, local government. I also welcome the idea of giving local councils greater freedom to experiment. I share the noble Lord's desire to make local government much more accountable; much more accessible, particularly for constituents; and more attractive so that people will put themselves forward as councillors to serve their communities.
However, I have many reservations about the detail of the Bill. As we shall have an opportunity to discuss the details in Committee, perhaps I may confine my remarks this evening to just two areas. I should like to concentrate particularly on accountability and on certain aspects of the experimentation, as well as on how we can make local government more attractive both to candidates and the voting public.
I start with accountability. I am afraid that, unless we see stronger safeguards in the Bill for back-benchers and opposition members, I am not sure that allowing individuals certain powers and setting up one-party committees will increase accountability. However, perhaps I may suggest one or two things that might do that: we could devolve committee structures to local areas, allow members of the public to question councillors: and allow members of the public the right to speak in committee on certain items. I believe that such changes are more likely to increase the accountability of our local councillors. Liberal Democrat councils have successfully introduced the latter proposals and have allowed public question times—quite often in the face of strong opposition from other parties, but sometimes with their agreement.
On the point about a committee structure, I believe that devolving the committee structure to local level has, where it has been tried, done an incredible amount to bring the public closer to their councils and to make the councillors more accountable to the public. I have experience of two councils which I know well and which are run by Liberal Democrats. One is Kingston
694
and the other is East Hampshire. One is an urban authority; the other is a rural authority, but, more or less independently, they have set up similar systems. Councillors have found that when dealing with planning matters—always a difficult area for local councillors—they have been under great scrutiny from local people and they have been held accountable for the way in which they have voted on certain issues.
We must try to attract candidates to local government and help people to become interested in serving as local councillors. I agree that many people who could use their expertise and interests to the benefit of their local communities are at present deterred from standing for local councils. That is partly because the world of work has changed so much in recent years. The jobs market is very competitive and it is now difficult for people to take time off work so that they can devote the necessary time to being a local councillor. I believe that people have been put off for another reason: in recent years many decisions have been centralised. Local people feel that they do not have much power so they ask why they should put themselves out by spending a lot of time in the council when they can make only a few decisions. Finance has been a particularly difficult area for local councils. We have had capping and all sorts of restrictions so people question exactly what decisions are now left to local councillors. That area needs further consideration.
I turn now to the voters. I do not quite follow the logic of the argument that the committee structure would encourage voters to think that everything was much more accountable. I believe that that is up to the individual councillors. I agree with the noble Lord that councillors of all parties tend to get extremely hung up about the day-to-day running of their local councils and to forget who elected them to that place. Voting history shows that those councillors who take the trouble to keep in touch with their electorate, to go out and be involved in their local community and to bring the council nearer to that local community, are those who make the people in that community more interested in local government. I believe that that increases the turn-out. In an area in which I was very active when a councillor, we increased our turn-out because we made local government important to local people. We are well known for that as Liberal Democrats. We tend to publish what are called "focus leaflets" which at certain times cause consternation, but which have a purpose and ensure that people are kept in touch with what is going on.
I would not be a Liberal Democrat if I did not take this opportunity to say that I think that the electorate would be more interested in voting in local elections if we had a fairer and more representative electoral system. I know that that point was raised when the general matter was investigated. I hope that at some stage in the future that possibility will become a reality.
The intention of the Bill is laudable, but I do not think that the reality will quite meet the intention. The Bill seeks to improve the administrative running of councils, but we must also take a look at the democratic process. Achieving the right balance between those two is important. It may be that as the Bill progresses some of

695
the safeguards about which I am concerned can be included in order to address those problems. I am aware that I am probably in a minority tonight in giving the Bill what could be called "lukewarm" support. Given that I am a Liberal Democrat and that we always wax lyrical about being the leaders of experiments in local government, that may surprise some people, but I hope that I have explained some of the reasons behind my views. I look forward to the rest of the debate and particularly to the speech of my noble friend Lady Hamwee who is a councillor of long standing, with a great deal of experience of experimentation in local government.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as is traditional, I am sure, on the occasion of making one's first speech in your Lordships' House, I have taken extensive advice on how one should conduct oneself. The most useful document is, of course, the single sheet of A4 paper provided by an unknown author from the Whips' Office which simply advises maiden speakers to be,
"unprovocative and refrain from saying anything that might give offence, politically or otherwise".
So, having taken extensive advice I decided to join in a debate about local government. Looking around the Chamber this evening I am not so sure about the wisdom of that decision.
However, the subject of the debate is one which I find hard to resist—and here perhaps I should declare an interest as leader of one of the nation's better known local authorities, Brighton and Hove. The future of local government is very much on the agenda and I welcome the opportunity to make some observations on the content of the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth.
The noble Lord is, in my view, to be congratulated on an act of outstanding bravery in bringing this measure forward. Looking at the Rowntree Trust poll of 1,600 councillors conducted in 1994, I note that only 3 per cent. of those members decided that they liked the idea of an elected mayor and just 13 per cent. favoured the principle of executive Cabinet-style structures. Yet national public opinion polls show 70 per cent. to 90 per cent. support for such measures.
The debate about the modernisation of local government is one that will increase in intensity. It is not one that will always attract widespread support, largely because of a misunderstanding of the intent of the proposals and their effect. After all, this is an enabling piece of legislation. It provides an opportunity for change; it does not prescribe change. In so doing it does not offer either carrot or stick. For this reason it is to be welcomed. Local authorities have a choice. They can embrace its principles or continue working as they do currently. The choice is theirs. Its principal innovatory features would enable local councils to create directly elected executive leaders or mayors, establish political executives or cabinet style local government, delegate some decisions to lead or executive councillors and
696
arrange for the appointment of scrutiny or select committees. All are important measures in whole or part.
Variants of these models can be put in place, but whatever they are they must conform to the important principle of making local authorities more accountable, efficient and effective. All of these objectives must be in the public interest and the interests of good public service.
Some councils, and no doubt many councillors, will ask why they should embrace this agenda for change. To them I have this observation to make. Why is it that in almost any public opinion survey undertaken the public continue to be largely ignorant or ill-informed about the business of local democracy and yet also crave more information and access to their local council and its decision making processes?
Authorities like my own, Lewisham, Camden, York, Bradford, South Somerset, Sutton, Derbyshire, and many, many others, have over the past few years undertaken extensive efforts to develop community planning and consultation mechanisms to open up the democratic processes of local governance and let the people into its "secret garden". Yet with all of this activity, and no doubt with unqualified success in terms of feedback, are we really creating a more participative local government system or a system in which people really find they have a say? If so I fancy that we would see larger turnouts in local elections.
The fact is that in terms of performance league tables—as a Brighton and Hove Albion fan I know about these things—.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: From top to bottom!
Lord Bassam of Brighton:—the UK occupies the bottom spot in terms of public participation in local elections. Just 40 per cent. traditionally vote. We sit last in a table of EC turnouts: Denmark has 80 per cent., France 68 per cent., Germany 72 per cent. and Italy 85 per cent. How much democratic legitimacy can we in local government claim when so few feel motivated to participate?
My case for change is based on the need to renew and engage in the democratic process so that in the future we do not go through the excessive centralisation and accretion of power to the centre which over the past two decades we have experienced. We need to make local government more relevant to our people, more active, more alive and—dare I say—more fun. We need to open up its structures and make the business of government a touch more exciting.
I argue that mayoral contests will increase turnouts and excite local electors and generate local debate. The media will be interested, and they will become the focus of strong civic leadership that develops in our communities. If it takes the creation of a directly elected political leader to do it it is worth giving it the green light. My guess is that the debate in which your Lordships' House engaged on Monday about the creation of a greater London authority with an elected mayor will in a few years lead to an explosion of interest

697
from provincial towns and cities in changed democratic forms. No one will want to be left behind, especially as London again becomes a focus for excellence in governance and a pace setter in attracting inward investment from the business sector and regenerating public services. London will become an international cultural and financial capital and be known as such for its democratic voice.
The long-term trends in local government take us inevitably in the direction of a new agenda for the revitalisation of civic life. I believe that local leaders are indirectly elected mayors already. Most local authorities have informal cabinets. I believe that for the past 50 years the very notion of good local governance has been under threat. We need to reverse that process. Measures like those proposed in the Bill at last give us the opportunity to do things both well and differently. They will enable us to get more from the undervalued and often ignored talents of elected councillors. They will enable Government to give councillors back trust and responsibility and enable those of us involved to carve out a new, exciting and powerful strategic role for democratic public services.
Our local authorities spend in excess of £45 billion annually in the provision of those services, yet we invest little in training and improving the quality and calibre of councillors who make vital and critical decisions that affect the daily lives of all citizens. The experimental arrangements Bill will encourage local government to introduce structures and processes which should be more relevant, open and accountable to the people in whose name we seek to serve. It should encourage authorities that are strategically better focused, well led and act with a sense of purpose and vision. It should help those of us who are committed to the modernisation and improvement of government to re-fashion local government more in the image of the new millennium and less in the shadow of the Victorians who provided us with such a rich legacy but, sadly, have left us with a system of committee-led, process-dominated and often faceless and over-bureaucratised councils.
We have a willing and supportive Government that want to help local government rediscover its basis and origins. We have a willing agent of change in the Local Government Association, who have argued for and given aid to the Bill. Sir Jeremy Beecham said:
"Being a councillor should be about representing the local community, both at ward and authority level. Reviewing our procedures and experimenting with better ones under the proposals…should mean that the structures allow councillors to be more effective representatives of their communities. These and other reforms will help to renew local government as an accountable democratic force for leading local communities and promoting their interests.
"I hope that every local authority will look at its procedures and explore the possibilities for experiment contained in this Bill".
I believe that those are very powerful and important sentiments.
If I have one minor criticism of the measure it is that it is perhaps not enabling enough. Let local electors have a say in triggering a local debate on new democratic arrangements, perhaps by obliging consultation or creating scope for a trigger ballot. Let us open the gate to local government's secret garden. I believe that there
698
is much talent and potential for innovation in local government. All of us should give our warm blessing and support to this Bill and begin the revitalisation of provincial local government tomorrow.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on his maiden speech which is based on long and substantial experience in local government and is spoken from the heart on behalf of local democracy. I hope that in future he will take a full part in the work of this House now that he has made such a good start. Perhaps I should declare a double interest when I say that council work forms a good basis for work in this House. It is even better when you are born and brought up in Essex.
It is with great regret that I express disappointment with the Bill, especially as it has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who was such an excellent chairman of the Select Committee on Central and Local Government Relations on which I also served. In the report of that committee Rebuilding Trust it was recommended that local government should be given more freedom to innovate, with which I agree. We had in mind a wide variety of possibilities which would allow local authorities to experiment to "improve their democratic legitimacy", particularly emphasising that "different models might suit different authorities". The report referred to a number of different ideas and ways of "responding more quickly to proposed partnerships perhaps with the private sector", or of "undertaking activities considered to be in the interests of their area", and "annual elections, referenda, elected mayors etc." which would "restore an interest in local democracy" and "promote a return to civic pride". We did not deliberately come down in favour of any one of those options.
I served in local government for about 25 years at district and county council level, so I believe deeply in its importance and freedom to act in the interest of its communities. In my early days politics took a back seat and there were no group meetings. Like Cross-Benchers here, we voted according to our conscience and local situation. I recognise that those days are gone, although witnesses told us:
"there was evidence that people wished to see less party involvement in local politics".
My disappointment over the Bill is that its suggestions are too narrow. They relate particularly, as laid down in Clause 1(2), to elected mayors, single members of the authority being able to discharge any of the functions of the authority acting alone, and to the appointment of committees of the authority:
"otherwise than in accordance with the political balance requirements".
Those are not the kind of arrangements that will improve local democracy. They will only give more powers, and arbitrary powers at that, to the majority party, which I do not believe most local people would want. The Bill, I agree, then goes on to provide for protective arrangements; but all that does, it seems to

699
me, is to increase bureaucracy. It would certainly make it more difficult for the ordinary back-bencher to play a full part in the workings of the council.
My Lords, when you are elected as a councillor, you are there to represent your village or ward in a town. As you take more part in the workings of the council, you soon learn that you cannot realise all your ideals; you certainly cannot have all your own way; and you have to consider other members' needs on behalf of their localities. All those things are naturally subject to resources being available. In my experience there are never enough resources, and money is always tight.
However, in the sub-committees and working groups, politics are not so high on the agenda; compromises can be reached and collective decisions made, taking into proper account the needs of minorities. Eventually, later in the process, there will be political disagreement on financial priorities, and other major policy decisions. It is very important that at the early stages of decision making local minorities should be present and have their say. Parish councils, for instance, which are not usually political, should be able to put forward their solutions to local problems. Perhaps I may declare an interest as president of the Essex Association of Local Councils. That is the essence of local government. Political caucuses, of whatever party, are no substitute.
Subsection (5) tries to reintroduce accountability, scrutiny, and the views of local electors. In my view that is too late. The die will be cast and it will be much more difficult to unravel a complex decision. I am not in favour of elected mayors, although I am not against experiments being tried. I believe that far too much power is put into the hands of one person. It smacks of some people's idea of the ideal committee—the committee of one. That is not my ideal.
The elected assembly can criticise the mayor's actions, but it will be much more difficult for that assembly to be in possession of all the information necessary to criticise objectively, and even more for it to force the mayor to change a policy. I have seen an elected chief executive in action in Germany. In that case, which is similar, it certainly led to arrogance towards the other elected members.
I hope that the Bill does not pass into law in its present form. I am in favour of more freedom for local government, but should like to see far less prescriptive measures. I should like to see a more bottom-up approach to powers for innovation, and more emphasis on subsidiarity at local level, to which we referred in our report.
As Robin Wendt, Chief Executive of the Association of County Councils, said in evidence:
"it is time that local government was actually trusted to be responsible rather than continually being told what it ought to do very often in considerable detail".
Once again, the Bill goes into too much detail. Responsible local authorities, responding to their own difficult local problems in an innovative manner, can develop policies that other local authorities may decide to adopt too, once again adapting them to their own local situations. Sometimes those policies may later be
700
adopted nationally, which shows their practicality. The Bill does not fulfil the Select Committee's ideas or give enough freedom to innovate at a local level.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, on bringing it forward. As a former member of the Oxford and Birmingham City Councils, he has been rather modest about the effect of these proposals. I see them as being an essential element in the rejuvenation of local government and local democracy, and in the potential that local councils have to give leadership to their local communities.
I have lived in Birmingham for 20 years, and I have seen the effect of a local authority pulling its community together, leading it from a situation in the early 1980s when so many of our traditional industries and businesses went to the wall, to attracting new investment, investing in the arts, and new services such as the National Exhibition Centre and the convention centre, to trying to develop as well, and in parallel, an improvement in services such as education.
With cross-party support, local authorities such as Birmingham have shown what can be done to rebuild confidence in a community. What Birmingham has done, a number of other local authorities have also done. The history of local government over many years now has been negative. Since the war there has been a continual taking away of power from local government. That started in the 1940s with electricity, gas and health. Before the formation of the NHS, the LCC was the largest hospital authority in the world. In 1974 NHS responsibilities, which local authorities then had, were taken away, along with water. Since then the police and major parts of the education service have gone. Throughout that process we have seen central government putting many more controls on local government and capping their ability to raise revenues locally.
It is hardly surprising that the public has lost confidence and interest in what local authorities do; hardly surprising that voter turnout is so disappointing; and that local authorities have found it difficult to get away from that rather depressing picture, when their decision-making processes rest so much on a committee structure bequeathed to local government by our Victorian forefathers.
As someone who worked in the NHS for many years, I have to admit that local government does not have a monopoly of committees and working groups. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the Audit Commission report, which was published this year, stated that too much of a burden is placed on councillors, often unproductive, by committee meetings which are focused on detailed issues. It went on to say that such committees could consume large amounts of management time, slow down decisions, and duplicate one another's work.
It is worse than that. The committee system has inhibited strategic leadership in many local authorities. It has undermined the role of managers and officers in

701
managing services. It has inhibited the integration of services. I often think that the local government committee structure, reinforced by powerful departments and committee chairs, parallels the problem that we have in Whitehall in terms of achieving integrated approaches across departmental barriers.
There are examples of local councils which have attempted to innovate in the decision-making process by introducing provider committees and policy committees; setting up time-limited task forces which have attempted to cross departmental boundaries; decentralisation to local committees; changing the management philosophy from one of a hierarchical philosophy to one based on outputs; and the output of the work in relation to the public.
So much more needs to be done. If local government is to recover, if we are to have dynamic democracy at local level, it must take a more radical approach to changing the way in which it makes decisions. That is why I welcome the Bill so much. I believe that the prospect of elected mayors, single councillor responsibility and a cabinet system of Government will offer the opportunity of greater strategic leadership and greater public interest. I believe that more people will wish to stand for election to local government.
I should have liked the Bill to have gone further. I should like to have seen greater ability for councils to devolve to local committees. As Professor John Stewart and George Jones have written:
"Local authorities which have considered imaginative schemes for decentralisation have found themselves restricted by legal constraints about the delegation of powers and about co-option".
They go on to argue:
"It is important to balance the concentration of power in the Executive with measures of decentralisation".
A number of issues will need to be teased out as the Bill progresses. There are the needs of the minorities, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt; the balance between the greater authority which will be given to the political leadership of a council; and the effectiveness of scrutiny arrangements which need to be put into place. I strongly support the concept of a Select Committee approach.
Then there is the need to ensure that back-benchers within local authorities have a real job to do. Scrutiny certainly, ward work of course, but I also believe that they must have an opportunity to take part in policy development. What happens if relationships between, say, the elected mayor and the council break down? What happens if the council consistently rejects the major proposals put forward by the mayor? What happens if the mayor's behaviour is deemed to bring the local authority into disrepute? How can we introduce safeguards into the process which cannot be used by one party, which might have the majority of councillors, to undermine the position of the elected mayor who may come from another political party?
Furthermore, I am somewhat concerned about the wide discretion which the Bill gives to the Secretary of State to make modifications of enactments. We need to understand the implications of that.
702
Finally, as regards openness, I am a critic of the committee system in local government. But in one sense at least it has to its credit that it is an open system. It is open to the public to go and hear decisions being made. It is important that in making these new arrangements we do not move away from a principle that decision making in local government should be open.
The great beauty of the Bill is that it allows for innovation, experimentation and the sharing of good practice. I believe that it is timely for local government to be reinvented and reinvigorated and for the next 20 years to see powerful democratic local councillors listening to their public and having a leadership role to play on behalf of their local communities. I very much support the Bill in that context.
8.14 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt of Tanworth on bringing forward his private Bill tonight and introducing it so clearly. I wish to say a little about elected mayors, who first came to my notice during evidence given to my noble friend's Select Committee into relationships between central and local government in 1995-96. The issue of elected mayors was kept alive by a speech made by Mr. Tony Blair to a local authority conference in July 1996; by a discussion paper published by the Fabian Society in March this year entitled More than the Flower Show—Elected Mayors and Democracy; and, of course, in the proposals for a mayor for London contained in the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill which had its Second Reading in this House on Monday.
An elected mayor is foreign to the way in which local government is run in this country. Indeed, the 1986 Hillingdon judgment stated that there is at present no statutory power for the council or for committees or for sub-committees to delegate decisions to individual councillors.
By "elected mayor" I mean someone who is elected by all the people he or she must serve within a local authority area and who, once elected, will assume executive responsibility for that area. In our great cities, where party politics are strong, I imagine that the person elected will probably be a prominent politician and probably the current leader of the authority. And if a system of proportional representation is used in the election it should ensure that whoever is elected commands broad-based support. In country areas, where party politics are less strong, the successful candidate for mayor could well be someone who belongs to no political party but is fiercely ambitious for the welfare of his local area. A successful elected mayor could achieve national prominence, strengthen the local government side of the central-local government relationship, and help to reinvigorate local democracy, which is in danger of disappearing.
In a national survey recently carried out by Strathclyde and Glasgow universities as part of the ESRC local governance programme, more than 70 per cent. of the public supported the introduction of elected mayors, while only 16 per cent. of councillors liked the

703
notion. I do not see that councillors should be unduly concerned. Certain decisions, such as the level of the local budget and council tax, would still have to be made by the whole council as required by law. Committees will still need to be manned and decisions taken. Once the executive and the councillors have agreed how the local authority is to be run in all its aspects, the local councillor will have an important role to check that what was agreed is being carried out and to complain if it is not. Local councillors will still have their all-important role of representing the interests of their electors. They should become more effective and that will help to stimulate local interest in local affairs. Whereas councillors will be all right under an elected mayor system, there might be some redundancy among whoever is carrying out the role which the elected mayor will assume. That probably means the current chief executive.
My noble friend's Bill will allow local authorities to experiment with the ways they carry out their jobs with a view to doing them better. I hope that they will rise to the challenge. Mr. Michael Clarke and others at the School of Public Policy at the University of Birmingham, in their pamphlet Executive Mayors for Britain?, make the point that there is no single model for decision making that will suit all councils. Indeed, from the experience of systems in America and Germany, it appears that there is a wide difference between systems where there are clear executive arrangements and also a variety within systems.
In his speech on the Greater London Authority Bill the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, speaking of an elected mayor for London, said:
"I for one would not be at all surprised if the London example were soon adopted by other cities, large and small, in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 15/12/97; col. 429.]
Greater London will not have its elected mayor before the year 2000. By then, cities such as Bristol, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Brighton could have elected mayors and London might be approaching those cities to see how it is done. I hope we shall shortly give this Bill a Second Reading.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, for the first time in my 17 years in this House, I must begin with an abject apology to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I should explain that I was attending the annual reception of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. I informed my colleagues there that the House of Lords was debating the abolition of nuclear weapons and I told them that it could not possibly abolish them before eight o'clock. I was wrong.
However, I was fortunate in coming in for the first minute of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. It is not often that Brighton is doubly represented in one of your Lordships' debates. Perhaps it is an omen for the future.
When I read the Bill, I found it somewhat surprising because circumstances have changed to such a great degree since the Select Committee, which the noble
704
Lord, Lord Hunt, chaired in the last Parliament, reported last summer. At that time we lived in a very quiet and unchanging world. The idea of having elected mayors or making other changes in local government could have been regarded as a somewhat radical proposal. But we are now in a very different world. We are being subjected to a series of major constitutional changes. Some may think well of them and others less well but they could result in, for example, Scotland passing under the rule of Mr. Alex Salmond; Wales passing under the rule of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas; Guernsey perhaps being ruled by Mr. Geoffrey Robinson; and London will be run, as we understand it, either by the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare or by Mr. Ken Livingstone or, as in "The Gondoliers", a sort of joint rule which would be interesting.
Therefore, it is in that perspective that we must judge this modest suggestion. It did not figure, I think, in the article in The Times today by Mr. Anthony Barnett, setting out the great changes which have already been made or are about to be made. But then Mr. Barnett combines an extraordinary degree of ignorance, folly and self-righteousness which is not unique in British politics, although it is occasionally to be observed. What we are discussing is something which, as both noble Lords on the other Benches have pointed out, appears to reflect—unlike some of the major constitutional changes—some kind of local demand. When we had witnesses before us in the Select Committee I was struck by the feeling that there were a lot of very capable people, both elected members of local authorities and, even more perhaps, some of their officers who compared extremely favourably with the Whitehall civil servants whom we examined. I felt that there was a good deal of talent not being utilised fully by the nation as a whole.
It is true that, as I remember it, they did not attach so much importance to the internal reorganisation of what I gather we are supposed to call the decision-making process as they did to the recovery of some control over their own affairs which could be brought about only if there were some relationship between the way people voted in local government and the forms of expenditure which the local authority was allowed to make. Indeed, they were so keen on that that at one moment—of course, it was only a momentary aberration on my part—I thought that they really wanted the poll tax back; but perhaps that is to exaggerate.
In any event, it is obviously interesting and important that if that demand exists, we should find some way of cultivating it. The low turn-out in local government elections, which has been referred to, is not proof conclusive of public apathy but at any rate is a prod to think about it again.
The difficulty is whether these proposals seem likely in themselves to re-create the sense that there is not only a local identity but some local thrust towards particular solutions of those problems. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to our Victorian predecessors from whom we inherited roughly, although with many changes, the structure of elected local government which prior to that had not existed in any serious fashion. Conscious as I am of the decision-making in Brighton

705
in recent years, the most obvious example of defiance of our Victorian predecessors has been the abolition of most of the public conveniences in that town. I do not know what the Victorians would have said about that or whether, with a better decision-making process, it could have been avoided. Nevertheless, there are clearly arguments in favour of at least an experiment. Will people feel about a mayor as they do not feel about the leader of a council, even if that leader has the most excellent qualifications?
Therefore, I am inclined to say that on the whole there is an argument for what is proposed being tried. I believe that it should be tried first in areas where there is a clear undercurrent of popular demand for a greater say in local affairs. Unlike the changes in boundaries we have had to put up with in local government, which vitiates a good deal of what one is trying to do, I do not believe that it should be universal, at least to begin with.
The committee was precluded from considering the problems of London government. We took no evidence relating to London. Given the fact that we are, so it seems, to have that mayoralty, single or dual as the case may be, I should have thought that London is perhaps rather low on the list of places where we should experiment with another tier of mayors. It is bad enough going round Westminster and bumping into tourists. If you bump into mayors on every corner, that would be an additional problem. If there is an amendment to delete London from the Bill it would have my support, but in other respects I think it certainly ought to go forward.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I start with an apology as I could not be present when the report of our committee was received in this House. I extend my apologies and thanks to the chairman of the committee at this stage. I welcome the opportunity to do so here because of my failure to be present at the appropriate time. However, I cannot match the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, as regards his summary of what is happening in local and other government.
Some 50 years ago I became involved in various ways in local government. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has given examples of certain matters which have ceased to be governed locally. Therefore there is no need for me to dwell on that point, as I had intended to do if the debate had taken a certain course. I expected this debate to be short because, after all, we are merely proposing that local authorities should tell us what they think about innovation, and whether or not they wish to innovate or introduce various provisions.
I thought that I could say a few words about mayors of cities but then I thought that I had better not do so. However, several have done so. In the debate the other day about London noble Lords were talking about all kinds of matters other than the relevant Bill. The Bill concerned a referendum and whether that could gain the support of people in London. However, we heard about mayors and all kinds of things. As regards the possibility of having a mayor, I would say only that anyone who has visited Washington at a time when the mayor was about to be changed, and has had an interview with the
706
officers who were appointed to carry out the job of governing the city, will never support the appointment of a mayor. The place was bedlam. Every officer was trying to elicit support to ensure that he kept his job when the new mayor was elected. Therefore I would never support the idea of a mayor. We have mayors, some of whom are good and some of whom are not. There is one blessing as regards the mayor of a major city: he will probably be the mayor for only 12 months. After that someone else can be appointed.
The job of a mayor is to represent what a city is all about. Sometimes a mayor has to carry out his job with his tongue in his cheek, but at least he does it. He speaks for both sides in the council. I do not think anyone can suggest that if we had an assembly and a mayor in London there would be no difference of opinion between the two. Of course there would be differences of opinion. Then the mayor would be in difficulty or the assembly would be in difficulty. But one thing is certain, sooner or later that row between the mayor and the assembly would reach the ears of the public. Such a situation is not on.
I have also visited Chicago at the time of Mayor Daly. Some said that he was popular but others detested him. He told me explicitly that if the officers in Chicago did not pay their "subs" to the right party, they would no longer be officers in Chicago. There was a complete acceptance of that in Chicago at the time. Anyone who has studied the history of Chicago and Mayor Daly will know some of the things that went on in Chicago. That should teach us not to have mayors. At this stage we should not tell local government what to do. In fact we should never tell local government what to do. We should have faith that they will tell us what they want to do. At this stage we should not be saying, "We do not think local government should do this or that". The debate tonight has given me pause for thought. What we need is a real debate on local government.
I do not know whether the position of local government will revert to that pertaining in 1945 or earlier. All I know is that in 1944 local government was responsible for many matters. I ask myself over and over again: will that situation recur? If anyone drives round a major city today in a motor car, the first thing he will find is that it is difficult to drive through the city centre as it is full of buses. Those buses are nearly all empty, even at peak times. They all pour out fumes into the atmosphere, poisoning the city. Why does that happen? It happens because the management of those buses is no longer in the hands of the local authority. We have moved away from the position in the 1940s to a situation where local government effectively does not exist. The management of local affairs reposes in the boardrooms of various offices.
Local government once managed water, electricity and gas. Anyone could make representations to local authorities. That is no longer the case. How long will it be before we discover that the private sector will not fund the necessary investment adequately to provide those facilities in the long term? There is already talk in the water industry as to whether or not there are failings in the provision of that service. The private sector is certainly failing as regards the provision of decent buses

707
in appropriate routes in city centres. When the services fail, central government will look to local government to sort things out.
We should not criticise this Bill on the ground that it merely allows local authorities to propose certain measures. If we want to examine fundamentally the government of this country we must go into the matter much more deeply than merely examining local government. Soon the transport systems within cities and conurbations will fail. When those transport systems fail, some so-called local authority will have to consider the problems. I give an example from the place I know best; namely, Liverpool. It will be no use the local authority merely considering the problems that arise in the city centre of Liverpool; it will have to look also at Merseyside.
When we talk about innovations in the operation of government, we must bear in mind that we may have to consider what kind of government we want. The truth is that local government is moribund. We shall not reinvigorate local government unless we attract people's attention to it and get them involved in it. This Bill is an attempt to stimulate that debate among local authorities so that they will contribute to the general debate about local and national government. It is important that we examine how we are governing our community. When someone talks to me about sovereignty as regards local government or national government, I ask, where is it? That sovereignty has been moved firmly and sharply to the private boardroom and we cannot do much about it.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is a great delight to welcome to the Chamber another good friend of local government. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, when he is being controversial.
Like other noble Lords, I must declare an interest as a serving councillor in a London borough. Like others, I, too, was privileged to serve on the Select Committee, which was unanimous not only in its report but also its admiration for the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. That makes me particularly sorry to sound a note of unease, but I have a sense of disappointment at opportunities that might have been taken in the Bill. I am not alone this evening in making these points.
When the Select Committee commented on the desirability of innovation, it referred to powers as well as administration: the powers of local government, and the electoral arrangements applying to local government. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, reminded us of that. He made some trenchant statements to some of the officials who gave evidence. He has also provided me and, I believe, other colleagues with a great deal of material for speeches based on the comments he made about some of the absurdities that he exposed during the course of our proceedings.
Paragraph 3.32 of the Select Committee report referred to the need for popular support, improvement in turnout, finding ways to involve the public, and
708
strengthening local democracy. The paragraph indicated that one method was to allow individual authorities the option of moving to different electoral systems for local elections.
In paragraph 3.31 the report floated some options for experiment: the separation of powers into an executive and legislative branch; the use of local referenda or local proportional representation. It is important to regard the proposals in the Bill as merely a selection, a choice from the menu, of the totality of the ideas which the Select Committee debated and recommended.
After consultation in 1991, it was stated that the Government wished to ensure that local government attracted good councillors who could represent the electorate effectively. I agree that that is important. My noble friend Lady Maddock mentioned the issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who referred to career development. Those of us who may have become a little stuck in our ways in our authorities may have failed to recognise adequately the importance of encouraging colleagues and of recognising the constraints on them. They cannot drop their day jobs. They have to cope with the strains of their "real life", of their careers. However, there is a responsibility on us to assist them to develop their political careers as well.
The committee structure is not perfect. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the diversity of local authorities and the need to reflect that diversity in the structure. But we must be alert to the inherent dangers there may be in some changes, such as devaluing the role of local representatives, discouraging general local interest which often presages the first step into political activity, balancing the relationship between casework and management, the creation of a second class of members, undermining representative democracy, and introducing personality politics if that is to the detriment of democracy.
That is not to say that we on these Benches do not support innovation and experimentation. My noble friend has referred to what can be done without changes in legislation. I agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that greater freedom to devolve the work of local authorities would be much valued. There is scope, too, for introducing different combinations of subject within committees—thematic committees—and recognising the need for a more holistic approach to what local authorities do. However, any experimentation has to be subject to safeguards and should provide a sufficiently wide menu of options.
The context for the Bill is not just the relationship between local and central government. The proposals are now within the context of freedom of information measures which the Government are bringing forward. I welcome that. It would be ironic if there were to be more access to information on the part of the public while at the same time the rights of minority and back-bench councillors were reduced. I shall be interested to examine the interrelationship of the developments.
The proposals are within the context of the work of the Nolan Committee (now the Neill Committee) on openness and standards. I fear that within the proposals

709
there may be scope for blurring the distinction between government and management and for obscuring the reasons underlying decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, talked about the term decision making, as we are now to call it. The Bill is about improved decision making. But what is an improvement? I agree that it is important that decisions are taken speedily. But is that more important than that they have local support and local relevance? Speed is important but it is not the only criterion.
The Bill proposes the possibility for individuals to fulfil different roles. An individual can fulfil the requirements of accountability and democracy—although I suspect that it is easier for an individual to slide out of those requirements than when within a committee structure. I do not advocate personality-free local government, but again I wish to be assured that there will be proper safeguards.
The Secretary of State is to consult the Audit Commission and the Local Government Association. Perhaps I should congratulate the association on what is likely to be its first mention in legislation. But, as has been said, there is no requirement on the local authority to consult locally. The Bill might indeed have provided the opportunity for local referendums. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to trigger ballots. I think that that phrase would get us off the hook when working out whether we should talk about "referendums" or "referenda". I thank him for that.
I am not in favour of elected mayors but I think that local communities should decide. Proposals for experiment should be put to them.
We do not know what criteria the Secretary of State will use for his decision. What criteria will be contained in the Secretary of State's guidance? Clause 1(5) of the Bill refers to accountability, regard for the electorate, and scrutiny arrangements. If those arrangements are inadequate, does it mean that the application will be refused? I look forward to examining what is meant by the provisions at Committee stage.
A scrutiny committee will be extremely important if single party committees are to take decisions. But a scrutiny committee, by definition, is backward looking. I have had the opportunity to take part locally in the work of a performance review committee. Its best work was in anticipating future developments and helping to set standards in advance.
Clause 1(5)(b) refers to having
"regard to the views of local government electors and other interested persons".
That is what councillors have to do all the time. Perhaps I am over suspicious, but I detect a degree of populism within the provisions which makes me a little uneasy. We know that it is easier to get elected on a promise to sweep the streets than on a promise to provide more domiciliary care or more services for people with learning difficulties.
I have never heard of a council leader who says that he needs more autonomy, but perhaps a council leader would not dare. I have often heard how the rights of minority councillors are absolutely fundamental to the good working of democracy. An elected mayor is
710
proposed. By what method of election? And if a local authority is to be permitted to experiment with new electoral arrangements for a mayor, then why not for the whole authority and why not other changes such as weekend voting and rolling registers and so on? I dare say we shall be told by the Minister that a White Paper is on the way. I would prefer to see the proposals as a package, for the rather cynical reason that once one has taken a few steps then, human nature being what it is, the pressures of the legislative timetable and so on, we may hear, "we cannot take forward the other elements of the package; local government has had its time in Parliament and we have to move on to other things". For that reason I would much prefer to wait to develop these ideas with others.
Some of the concern about the Bill is due to the very tight way in which some political groups on some authorities are run. One hears examples of a group taking a decision on the basis of its chairman's casting vote, with all the members then obliged to toe the line. I would hate to think that we were in any way helping to reinforce that kind of rigidity. Of course I accept that in reality some committees do rubber-stamp privately-taken decisions; but where the ruling group knows before it goes into a committee what decision it wants and will propose, the opposition has the right and also the responsibility to question what is proposed, to test it and to hold the ruling group to account.
Some authorities are one-party states and some are very nearly so, because of the electoral system. My noble friend Lord Tope and I know that, perhaps to our benefit, from our own authorities. But the changes in administration that are being proposed must have in-built safeguards to ensure that one-party states created by the first-past-the-post system are not turned into impenetrable fiefdoms. We all want to re-invigorate local democracy, but if increasing power to individuals and small groups is to be advanced then it is even more important that those who have supporting roles in those authorities are the more astute and assertive, and have real ability to act as a check and balance.
We talked in the Select Committee about local government having the right to fail. It needs courage to contemplate failure. I would not want to be thought to be arguing against legitimate innovation, and at Committee stage we will endeavour to test whether the structures proposed have adequate safety barriers, so that if there is a right to fail then it is a right to fail but not a likelihood of failure.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for bringing this Bill before the House for its Second Reading. I am certain that the proposals in the Bill will be the subject of great interest within local government. Certainly any proposals which have the potential to raise the profile of local government, to improve its accountability, to increase the interests of the public and their participation in the electoral process are to he welcomed and are certainly worthy of exploration.

711
I have to say at this point, as I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we on these Benches are somewhat surprised that the Government should be content for these proposals—which are quite far reaching—to be contained in a Private Member's Bill. I hope that since perhaps this follows the invitation offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on 23rd July to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, to bring forward a Bill, the Minister when she replies will be able to give us some indication, if it is possible, as to how time is to be found for this Bill, not only in this House but in another place.
Turning to the Bill itself, there we have a variety of options before us. Certainly as a local government member—and I declare my interest to that extent—I accept that committee structures need to be reviewed. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, referred to the ways in which the traditional committee structure can inhibit leadership, innovation and management. I accept the criticisms that he has made but I suggest to him that, as local government is structured today, it is not just a question of changing the system. Back-bench members need, as has already been mentioned, a fulfilling role: but I wonder whether that can actually be achieved for all back-benchers, given the relatively large number of local authority members which we have in authorities in the United Kingdom. That is a matter which I know is controversial and does not necessarily win one any friends among colleagues in local government. It is certainly a matter which if proposals of this kind were to be pursued would also need to be addressed.
My Lords, perhaps I may look at some of the options that are before us in the Bill. The first concerns executive mayors directly elected across the area of the authority. What is proposed is the introduction of an elected executive official: something which, apart from the particular and special proposals for the government for London, is a significant departure for the United Kingdom. That does not mean to say that it is wrong; but it is a new principle which would be established and one which therefore needs particularly careful thought and examination of the potential consequences for establishing that principle.
The second proposal involved delegation, as I read it, to executive councillors, one of whom becomes the indirectly elected executive mayor. These members individually would have executive power but not, under this model, power as a body. Perhaps if we could consider these two models for executive mayors for a moment, I believe, as I said during the debate on the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, we need to give consideration to what effect these proposals would have on the institution of mayoralty as we know it in England and Wales, and which has served local communities and local government well. There is a great public understanding of the role of mayor, far greater than that of the leader of the council—something which, as a former leader, I may regret but which I believe to be true. The mayor, unlike the leader, is welcomed normally throughout his or her authority and generally is a non-political figure, certainly for his or her year of
712
office. He or she acts as an ambassador for the town outside and for the council within the city or the town. When the mayor becomes a political figure, as he or she would under these proposals, all that will change. Incidentally, as the Bill is drafted, if all London boroughs were to avail themselves of the possibility of directly elected mayors, certainly the prospect envisaged by my noble friend Lord Beloff of a mayor on every corner, and certainly in every quarter of Greater London, would come about. That is a detail which we would certainly want to examine. We need to consider the effects of these changes very deeply. A senior local government officer once said to me that the mayoralty was the most popular service that we provide. Therefore we need to be aware of the profound changes that these proposals would bring about.
The third model described to us is the cabinet system—a group of leading members with the personal executive power, including a single-party policy committee with decision-making powers on behalf of the authority. That raises a number of concerns and questions. Would the council as a whole be able to challenge decisions before implementation? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, scrutiny after the event is a different matter altogether. In those circumstances, is it right for a decision-making body, as opposed to an advisory body, to be single-party and meet in private? I pose that as a question.
The fourth model is the single-party executive committee, comprising members who do not themselves have executive powers but do have such powers when acting together. That raises similar concerns.
The last model, the single-party advisory committee being put in the constitutional framework of the authority, meeting in private and making recommendations to a multi-party body, the council or committee, is perhaps the least radical but certainly raises the least number of questions. It puts on a formal and proper basis the method of working of many local authorities and makes possible what, before changes to legislation, was previously carried on by many different authorities. The changes that were made regarding the admission of the public to meetings certainly prevented what was, in my experience, an efficient way of working. I also suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, that the whole question of delegations, particularly to one member, needs close examination.
Politics in local government are a reality. And of course there will always be group meetings. Having been a local authority leader, I well understand the case for the leadership of an authority, however constituted, being able to meet in private, subject to decisions being taken publicly in multi-party forum. A properly constituted committee, the membership of which is known, its meetings a matter of record, is not a secret meeting. I have to lend my support to that because it is the basis on which I gave evidence to the Widdicombe Inquiry, and I am not minded to withdraw that view at this stage.
We all look forward to discussing these matters at later stages of the Bill. In the meantime, I shall be interested to hear from the Minister her reactions to

713
these proposals: whether they are supported in their totality by the Government and—given the significant involvement that the Government may have had in the preparation of the Bill—whether government time will be available throughout the Parliament to see the Bill, if it is the wish of Parliament, enacted.
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have something of a sense of déjà vu, having been involved in the discussions referred to in earlier times—in fact, going back so far that I can remember decisions being taken away from chairs of committees on the grounds that it was unsafe to allow them to have powers. I believe the expression is, "What goes round, must come round".
I begin by saying how grateful the Government are that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has decided to bring forward this Bill. When we last debated the subject in July, my noble friend Lady Hayman, the Minister, said that we wanted to encourage democratic innovations in local government and greater public participation in local government and democracy. She also explained that finding time for legislation is always a challenge, and the Government have not been able to do so this Session. In those circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was invited to bring forward legislation enabling authorities to innovate and experiment with different management arrangements. The noble Lord is to be congratulated on taking up the opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, put a question to me on the issue. This is a Private Member's measure and as my noble friend Lady Hayman made clear, the Government intend to give it all the support we can. The noble Lord argued that the Bill should have been a government measure. I make no secret of the fact that, had there been less pressure on our legislative programme this Session, the Government would have put the Bill forward. But the noble Lord will understand the pressures.
In 1993, the then Conservative government accepted the recommendation of the Working Party on the Internal Management of Local Authorities in England that the Secretary of State should be given powers to allow individual authorities to make experimental changes to their internal management arrangements. They were, however, unable to find a suitable legislative opportunity. That is an important feature, and it is why we are so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing forward this Private Member's measure.
The debate has swung between two aspects. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which I took to be more in support than not, although I must admit, as a non-Londoner living here while the House is sitting, I was rather frightened of the "push-me, pull-me" creature that he was creating. I shall read very carefully all the supporting background documents to make sure that we are not offering a job-share to people of different parties, which could lead to problems for the capital.
I remind the House that the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, urged the Government to find legislative time as a matter of
714
urgency. In response, the then government, the previous Conservative government, promised to bring forward legislation in the next Parliament. We are now in that next Parliament; however, I believe it will be agreed on all sides of the House that we face even greater legislative pressure than did the previous government. The measure before us is a Bill that would implement the committee's recommendations, and do so at the earliest practical opportunity.
I appreciate that noble Lords who have spoken might have wished to see a much larger measure brought before the House. However, I stress that the nature and history of the Bill—allowing local authorities to experiment in their own political management—makes it particularly apt that it is introduced from the Cross-Benches by the chairman of a Select Committee which unanimously recommended such legislation. Given that it is brought forward in this way, we in all parties can perhaps more readily, collectively, support the Bill—such support being essential if its purpose of inspiring innovation in political management is to be achieved.
There are precedents for Private Members' legislation making important changes to local government legislation. The current provisions on access to information in local government in the Local Government Act 1972 were placed there through a Private Member's measure introduced in another place by Robin Squire and sponsored in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised her concerns and disappointments. We accept that the Bill is a first, albeit significant, step in a programme of democratic innovation. It is a step which local government has been waiting for since 1993. I agree that the Bill needs to be seen in a wider context. That context is that this Government were elected in May to modernise Britain and, as a crucial part of that agenda, local government. Reinvigorated and renewed local government is at the heart of the pledge of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to modernise our country and bring back government to the people.
We wish to see councils which are modern in their political and organisational management; modern in their political outlook and attitudes; modern in their structures and service delivery; modern in the way they plan and exercise their economic development powers; and modern in their approach to partnership with the private and community sectors.
If enacted, the Bill will be a significant first step towards achieving that vision. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, explained, his Bill will enable a range of experiments to take place based on four or five main approaches. The legislation would be permissive, setting local authorities free to find better ways of taking decisions which suit them and their local circumstances. I appreciate the history and experience of my noble friend Lord Sefton but say to him that the measure has cross-party support from the Local Government Association representing local authorities in England and Wales.

715
We are keen for as many authorities as possible to take the opportunity raised within the Bill. Local democracy in this country is weak. Too few vote in local elections, too few are interested in local democracy. That matters. Without effective, democratic and accountable local government we shall not be able to secure the kind of local services people want, the kind of local leadership communities need and the quality of life our citizens rightly expect.
The Bill will, if enacted, enable local authorities to operate new arrangements which make it clearer who is responsible for the decisions which affect local people and which provide a sharper scrutiny of those decisions and the policies which guide them.
Most of the experiments under the Bill will involve the separation of the executive from the representative role and will, to a greater or lesser extent, enhance the representative role of councillors. New ways of working will mean a move away from the "attendance at meetings" culture in some authorities to a stronger representative and challenging function with real responsibilities for councillors.
A very important point is that it could also mean more time for councillors to spend in the local community. The point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about different types of councillors, such as those who have full-time employment, and the need for them to have an opportunity to be active in the community role in the area they represent both at residents' meetings and surgeries. It is a role which is seen by the public in all surveys as being particularly important. The role of councillors would be expanded. They would become, in a much clearer way, the advocates of local people, channelling their grievances and demands. That point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness.
The scrutiny function need not only relate to decisions already taken but could deal with the issue of overall strategy of the executive in determining an area of policy. Back-bench councillors could have in some cases a much enhanced impact on determining the authority's policy.
The Government welcome the opportunity for diversity which the Bill will permit. Those who are concerned about new models say that some of the models could create conflict between the executive and representational roles. New models will ensure that mutual accountability will operate effectively and visibly, for example, through cabinet or lead member systems or a model with an executive mayor. As to the issue of the role of the executive mayor, at this point I have to declare cowardice. My long experience in local government in the north west would lead me away from any temptation to promise to redraw the boundaries of Liverpool. I admit to cowardice on that point.
All these models have their merits and local authorities may come to different conclusions about which models are better than others in specific circumstances. I have no doubt that during the later stages of the passage of the Bill, we shall have further
716
debate on experiences in other countries. I specifically looked at the model of the directly-elected mayor in the City of Baltimore. I was impressed by that role.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the Bill is permissive. It gives local authorities the opportunity to innovate and experiment with their political and operational management structures. But it is not simply about the adoption of a specific model; the Government feel that the opportunity the Bill offers is important. It is a first step in a process, part of which is making local authorities more responsive to local communities.
In response to points raised by several Members, it is important to stress that local communities may have a part to play in some of the experiments proposed in the Bill. We believe that the potential benefits from taking part in the experiments are so significant that we would wish to see as many authorities as possible, of all types and from all areas, taking part. Indeed, we are pleased that we have already been told by authorities of all types, from London boroughs to shire counties and of all political colours, that they are actively working out proposals for experiment under the legislation. We are clearly of the view that the Bill ought to cover London boroughs along with other principal local authorities. If that means that London boroughs move to an arrangement with an executive mayor—though that is unlikely—so be it.
Each London borough already has a mayor. Under this legislation it would be up to each borough whether it wished to create a mayor with executive responsibility. That is perfectly consistent with our approach to the creation of the strategic London authority where the establishment of the GLA is not intended in any way to diminish the role of the boroughs. It will be a strategic authority which will tackle those of London's problems which require an all-London or multi-body response. The Mayor of London will speak with Londoners. It is clear that mayors of boroughs will speak with their residents also.
My noble friend Lord Bassam, in an outstanding maiden speech, demonstrated how much the House will benefit from his experience and knowledge in future debates, particularly Members such as myself who come from long distances and do not have the most recent local government experience.
The Government will, of course, need to be sure that in each experiment the necessary safeguards for probity and against fraud are put in place as well as arrangements for resolving any conflicts. The Bill envisages that all those issues should be covered in an authority's application to the Secretary of State setting out its proposed experiment. The Secretary of State will issue guidance to authorities about the kinds of safeguards which need to be built into each model permitted by the legislation.
The Government intend to consult widely on this guidance, ensuring that the best advice from academics and the local government world is reflected. It might include guidance on the nature of scrutiny committees, for example, making clear the requirements on political balance and access to information that would be necessary for the proposed arrangements to deliver better local government.

717
That point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I agree with the noble Baroness that openness and rigorous scrutiny are essential to any arrangements for a separate executive created under this legislation. I can assure her that those issues will loom large in any guidance issued to authorities and in the consideration of applications from authorities to experiment under this legislation. We on the Government Benches support that principle, as I imagine does the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Before any approval was given, both the Audit Commission and the Local Government Association would be consulted on the proposals. If the proposals are acceptable, the Secretary of State will lay an order giving effect to the proposals for that authority. And as he does so he will ensure that copies of the authority's proposals are placed in the Libraries of Parliament. All Members of this House and of another place will be able to satisfy themselves that for every experiment all necessary steps have been taken to safeguard and encourage proper and effective local government.
To conclude, the Government fully support this Bill and urge this House to do likewise both today and in its future progress through Parliament.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. The hour is getting late and I doubt whether noble Lords want a long closing speech from me which would be bound to repeat some of the points the Minister made. However, I should like to make one general point about the philosophy of the Bill. The objective is to allow local authorities as much freedom as possible to experiment with their internal structural arrangements for taking decisions with a view to modernising and bringing out into the open the different roles played by the executive and the
718
legislature and enabling them to be more responsive to local opinion. I do believe, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, said, that identifying where decisions are taken and where the buck stops provides a link to popular feeling and enables popular feeling to be more clearly and more strongly put over.
However, if one is to go for maximum experimentation it has to he accompanied by safeguards—safeguards for probity, obviously, but also safeguards to protect the rights of minorities. That means that the Bill inevitably contains a good deal of detail, more than some noble Lords would like. It has to contain a good deal of detail because what we are talking about in every case is giving local authorities temporary permission to experiment with things which are at present not legal. Therefore, one has to spell out what previous enactments there will he temporary derogations from in the case of each model.
The Bill has a certain degree of detail which is not particularly attractive at first sight. But it also has running throughout it a balance between giving local authorities as much freedom as possible to experiment while on the other hand preserving the things which we think are essential and for which there have to be safeguards. At the Committee stage there will be an interesting discussion about whether we have that balance right, as I believe we have.
A number of extremely interesting points have been raised on which I should like to ponder. There will be more thinking about the points made here than about mince pies during the Recess. I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question. Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past nine o'clock.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Gas-fired Power Station Applications
  Gas-fired Power Station Applications
  British Coal Corporation
  British Coal Corporation
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Prevention of Pollution from Merchant Shipping
  Prevention of Pollution from Merchant Shipping
  Opencast Coal Mining: Planning Policy
  Opencast Coal Mining: Planning Policy
  Railtrack (Thameslink 2000) Order
  Railtrack (Thameslink 2000) Order
  Blight: Report
  Blight: Report
  Surplus MoD Property: Disposal Guidelines
  Surplus MoD Property: Disposal Guidelines
  Government Correspondence: Security Classification
  Government Correspondence: Security Classification
  Single Vehicle Approval Scheme
  Single Vehicle Approval Scheme
  Scotland: Time Zone Regulation
  Scotland: Time Zone Regulation
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Scotland: Police and Fire Services Capital Allocations
  Scotland: Police and Fire Services Capital Allocations
  Scotland: Road Safety Barriers
  Scotland: Road Safety Barriers
  NHS Medical and Dental Students: Intercalated Degree Funding
  NHS Medical and Dental Students: Intercalated Degree Funding
  University College Hospital
  University College Hospital
  Organ Procurement
  Organ Procurement
  Insulation and Rateable Value
  Insulation and Rateable Value
  Turkey: Transfrontier Broadcasts
  Turkey: Transfrontier Broadcasts
  Electricity Pricing
  Electricity Pricing
  Gas-fired Electricity Generation
  Gas-fired Electricity Generation
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Rapid Draw Lotteries
  Rapid Draw Lotteries
  Home Office: Recruitment
  Home Office: Recruitment