Sitting of 1 July 1997

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

    KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Tuesday 8 July.

    LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 8 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Climate Change
    Mr. Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of (a) the recent research about climate change and (b) the consequent anti-pollution targets which Britain must set and meet. [4664]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Government have studied the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believe that urgent action is needed to tackle the threat of global warming. We will press for all developed countries to agree significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the Kyoto conference on climate change in December, backed by our target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2010.
    Mr. Simpson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he acknowledge that the achievements in reducing United Kingdom CO2 emissions under the Conservatives were largely based on the destruction of the coal industry and a recession in manufacturing? Meeting further reduction targets by 2005 will need a more constructive programme. What will be the components of the Government's programme? Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the Chancellor to announce an immediate programme of investment in low-impact technologies for the future and energy conservation for the present to supplement his long overdue and most welcome intention to reduce VAT on energy-saving materials in tomorrow's Budget?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the achievement of cutting CO2 emissions over the past
    90
    seven years has been at the cost of the decimation of the coal industry and the destruction of coal communities. No positive policies to achieve that needed reduction in CO2 emissions were put in hand. We shall certainly do that on the basis of a three-part policy: first, a new transport policy to encourage the use of public transport and more discriminating use of the private car; secondly, through greater use of renewable sources of energy, including combined heat and power; thirdly, through a big increase in home and industrial energy efficiency programmes. I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend for his constant lobbying on behalf of his measure, the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill. I am unable to anticipate what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will say tomorrow, but we have certainly listened carefully to my hon. Friend's constant pleading.
    Mr. Yeo: I am not sure whether the Minister's reply shows that there is about to be a reopening of coalfields under national ownership. Will he try to answer his hon. Friend's question? When will the Government state their policies to achieve the ambitious new target that they have just set for cutting carbon dioxide emissions? It is one thing for the Prime Minister to waft through New York and make a speech to win a few easy green plaudits, but what are the Government's specific policies to achieve those goals?
    Mr. Meacher: The speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in New York in the past week was universally applauded and widely accepted, even by the President of the United States, who paid tribute to Europe's role in which we are taking a lead. The Government have already set out—and I have mentioned to the House—a detailed programme. After the Kyoto conference, when we know the exact targets that have been agreed, we shall present a revised climate change programme. We shall present a White Paper, I hope early next year, that deals particularly with our integrated transport policy, which is a key part of the whole strategy.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when politicians put green policies at the top of the political agenda, it usually means substantial indirect tax increases?
    Mr. Meacher: As I have just said, this policy has many different strands, many of which do not involve fiscal measures, but I would be the first to recognise that fiscal measures, direct or indirect, can play an important role. We are, of course, considering those because we are determined, unlike the previous Government, to achieve our targets through proper, positive measures.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Although the Minister cannot anticipate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say in his Budget tomorrow, will he say whether he has urged the Treasury and his fellow Ministers to accept the argument that energy-saving materials should be no more heavily taxed than energy itself?
    Mr. Meacher: I am certainly on record as supporting that argument. Such a policy is desirable, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until tomorrow to find out whether it is in the Budget.

    Regional Development Agencies
    Ms Ellman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he has received from the public, private and voluntary sectors in the north-west on the first regional consultation for setting up regional development agencies. [4665]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I visited the north-west on 11 and 12 June as part of the Government's consultation on regional development agencies. I discussed our proposals with key players from the public, private and voluntary sectors in the north-west and was impressed by the enthusiasm with which the proposals were greeted. May I put on record the tremendous role that my hon. Friend has played in developing regional policy in the north-west and in bringing the many actors in the region together?
    Ms Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the north-west development agency will bring tremendous benefits to regions such as Liverpool by allowing environmental, transport and investment issues to be considered as part of one strategy and by enabling the public and private sectors to work together to meet identified needs?
    Mr. Caborn: The answer to that is yes. I was pleased to have discussions with the major partners in the north-west, particularly those from Merseyside, where they were trying to identify a strategic overview that would start to address some of the structural weaknesses in the competitive base. They are saying clearly to the Government that there is a lack of direction and of a strategic overview at regional level. Regional development agencies will fill that vacuum.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman point out exactly what the role of regional development agencies will be compared with that of local government? Will they replace local government? Will they be additional to local government? Where will they fit in with the regional governance that was talked about before the last election?
    Mr. Caborn: First, regional development agencies will try to start to clear up the mess that the previous Government left. They will start the move away from quangoland and bring some sanity to the sector. May I inform the hon. Gentleman that, when the Trade and Industry Committee considered regional policy driven from a competitive perspective, it found that more than 70 organisations were trying to deliver economic regeneration. Those are the problems that have been left by the previous Administration; we will clear them up in partnership with the real wealth creators.
    Mr. Fabricant: A review?
    Mr. Caborn: Can I just tell the hon. Gentleman that, when I was speaking to some of his colleagues from the Conservative party, and I asked whether they agreed with the previous Government's policy, they said no and that they held the new Conservative view; the old Conservative view is present on the Conservative Benches.

    Water Leakage
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the extent of water leakage in the north-west. [4666]
    Mr. Goggins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about water leakage in the north-west. [4675]
    The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): According to the Office of Water Services figures for 1995–96, North West Water lost about 34 per cent. of the water put into supply through leakage and Chester Water about 23 per cent.
    Mr. Hutton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he accept that my constituents and people throughout the north-west are deeply concerned about the scale of the problem and about the lack of any effective action by the previous Government to deal with it? I congratulate him on the action that he has taken so far and urge him to continue to exert the maximum pressure possible on water companies in the north-west to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's response. We intend to do everything we can to reduce leakage. The tremendous loss is paid for by the consumer and water, which is an essential and valuable resource, is lost. At our summit on 19 May, we gave the companies three weeks to reply to the 10 points about how water can be used much more efficiently and how leakages can be reduced. They have all responded. We are considering their replies and I hope to report to the House shortly.
    Mr. Goggins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, North West Water is currently losing about 56 gallons of water per day per property through leakage, and that even if it hits its target for leakage it will still be losing 46 gallons per property per day? Given that United Utilities made a profit of £440 million last year and that boardroom pay has increased by 268 per cent. since privatisation, does he agree that it is time for a radical shake-up of priorities?
    Mr. Prescott: I certainly do. That is what the water summit was about. The proposals that we made and the 10-point plan will achieve that. I hope to report to the House shortly. I visited New York recently—last week, in fact—for the UN summit and used the occasion to speak to the authorities there. Their leakage rates are less than 10 per cent. and they use technology produced in this country, so I see no reason why we cannot achieve such levels.
    Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in applauding North West Water for its investment in combating leaks? Will he particularly applaud the extension for a further year of the free leak repair service, which has already tackled 15,000 leaks on people's property? What assessment has he made of the damage that may be done by the windfall tax to the investment in combating leaks?
    Mr. Prescott: I think that judgments about the windfall tax should be made after the Chancellor has made his Budget statement tomorrow, but it is totally unacceptable that water companies have such high leakage rates. Their investment is insufficient and their profits are, in many cases, far too great and not justified. That is why we held the summit. We are entering positive dialogue with water companies to see how we can get better and more efficient use of water. As soon as I have come to conclusions on that, I will, as I have told the House, report back.
    Mr. David Davis: Since the Secretary of State says that investment is insufficient, will he tell the House what was the level of investment in the water industry in 1989, before privatisation, and what it is today?
    Mr. Prescott: I am quite prepared to say that, under all Administrations—Labour and Conservative—the approach to capital investment in our nationalised industries was totally inadequate due to a number of Treasury rules that were pursued at the time. I inherit a problem of privatised water companies having the highest leakage rates of any water authority in this country and abroad and I intend to make a change, as it is totally unacceptable. The investment equation is one part; the commitment to do something is another. After reaching our conclusions, I hope to repair some of the damage that has come about as a result of water privatisation, for which the Conservatives were responsible when in government.

    Earth Summit 2
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions it' he will make a statement about Earth summit 2. [4667]
    Mr. Prescott: Initiatives on the sustainable management of forests, on the provision of fresh water, on energy management and on oceans were agreed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's address to the UN General Assembly established the UK as one of the leading players in the international debate on sustainable development. The Prime Minister will also make a written statement shortly.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he accept that, really, the conference was high on pious words and not very good on promises of action? What was signed up to which this country and other countries will achieve?
    Mr. Prescott: Without doubt, the agreement fell short of what we would want to achieve. It was a conference to report back on the Rio conference and to see whether the rhetoric—if you like—of the Rio conference was matched by deeds. I think that it is generally agreed that, out of the industrialised nations, only Britain, Switzerland and Germany will achieve the Rio greenhouse gas targets. Other industrialised countries have failed to do that and to achieve the aid programmes that were set and the transfer of technology.
    The agreement was not very good, but some steps forward were taken. The agreements on the oceans, on fresh water and on the forests were a step forward, although they were not all that we wanted. We have to
    94
    recognise that the Kyoto agreement is the one where the real test will come: nations will have to make a judgment as to how they will set targets and whether they will achieve them. The full measure of—and a judgment about it—success against the targets on climate change will emerge when the statements are made at the Kyoto conference.
    Mr. Gummer: I have always respected the right hon. Gentleman for the directness of his language. I wonder whether he would be prepared to tell the President of the United States—primarily because the United States is the largest waster of energy in the world—that he has disappointed the entire world in his refusal to take on board real reduction targets and real dates. Although the United States has only 4 per cent. of the world's population, it uses 20 per cent. of the world's resources. Will he clearly tell the President that it is about time that he put his money where his mouth is?
    Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about America's contribution to greenhouse gases. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first Prime Minister to be critical of an industrial nation that had not achieved its environmental objectives. I note the right hon. Gentleman's strictures on the American President, but I also note that he did not make the same criticism of European industrial nations that have not achieved the same objective. It is for him to make a judgment on that matter.
    The point that I should make—a point that the President and the Vice-President of the United States made to the conference—is that we will have to convince the electorate. We pressed very hard and made it clear that everyone signed up to the Rio agreement, but the United States and a majority of industrialised nations failed to achieve the target. In his speech on Thursday, the President made it clear that the United States will present proposals at the Kyoto conference. We await those proposals.
    I should also tell the right hon. Gentleman that, an hour to two ago, I met a delegation of American Senators. They clearly dispute the targets—and they are the ones who will have to be convinced, even by the President of the United States. The right hon. Gentleman should therefore take into account some of the political considerations before expressing his stricture on the President of the United States.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that Britain will be one of only three countries to meet the reduction levels agreed at Rio in 1992 because of the actions of the previous Conservative Government and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)? Does he further accept that the public will not support generalised and indiscriminate tax increases that are simply disguised as green initiatives?
    Mr. Prescott: First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on taking charge of the shadow portfolio on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and welcome him to that position. It is not the first time that we have met across the Dispatch Boxes. After the previous Government's record, however, I was surprised to hear him talk about taxation. I should remind him that the landfill tax, which was quite a good tax, was

    95
    levied for environmental reasons. I should think that he went through the Lobby to support that tax. I suppose that, until he has fully learnt his brief, we will have to take his comments with a pinch of salt.
    It is important properly to recognise the role of the previous Administration in achieving the targets. I was delighted to accept the right hon. Member for Suffolk. Coastal (Mr. Gummer) as a member of the British delegation to the UN. We do not oppose him ideologically on environmental issues, although previously I have opposed him on other matters.
    We want to make real change. There should be no doubt, however, that the first stage in achieving that goal was made at the expense of 100,000 miners and mining communities in the United Kingdom. I would have greater respect for the views expressed by Opposition Members if more had been done to help coal communities pay that price, which has enabled us to claim to be on a high moral plane.
    Difficult decisions will have to be made. Achieving the second stage in our greenhouse gas reduction targets will entail action on transport and renewable energy issues and we are spelling out the policies by which we will attempt to achieve that goal. We have been in office for only eight weeks, but we have made progress in making the important decisions that will be necessary for change. Our commitment to progress is why the most powerful delegation ever sent by Britain to a UN conference established itself as a real authority on the work done by the previous Administration.

    Revenue Support Grant
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he intends to take to ensure an equitable distribution of revenue support grant for 1998–99; and what proposals he has for future years. [4668]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We are discussing with the Local Government Association possible improvements to the calculation of standard spending assessment.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. May I impress upon her the importance of achieving some redistribution of revenue support grant for the financial year beginning next April? I appreciate that she is talking to local government associations, but I hope that some action can be taken in the short term, with further consultation for future years, to try to get rid of the unfairness of SSAs. I know that my hon. Friend has received several representations that have produced ideas for redistribution and I hope that she will take the ideas on board.
    Ms Armstrong: We are considering all the suggestions that are being made, both for the short term and for the long term. As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to achieving as fair a distribution as possible. If, however, I took all the representations on board, I would have to work one against another because some are directly contradictory. We are determined to work to ensure that some of the gross unfairnesses that were apparent in last year's distribution are not apparent in future.
    Mr. Chope: Everybody is in favour of equitable distribution of grant, but will the Minister tell the House
    96
    which local authorities she considers are receiving too much grant? Before she joins the predictable chorus of "Westminster", will she accept that if Westminster had no grant, every other local authority would have an increase in grant of only 1 per cent. Local authorities throughout the country that think that Westminster's grant will be redistributed to them are living in a fool's paradise.
    Ms Armstrong: I think that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the gross unfairness of the previous settlement, which we shall try to address.

    Environment Agency
    Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to strengthen the role of the Environment Agency in the regions. [4669]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): The majority of the agency's staff are based in its regions or areas and much of its work is concerned with the protection of the environment at regional and local levels. I shall continue to support this important dimension of the agency's work.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she recognise that there is growing frustration that the Environment Agency is becoming too close to the big players in industries such as water and waste to be able properly to police polluters and make those responsible pay when they do damage? How will my hon. Friend and the Department ensure that the public can make their voice heard at local and regional levels and that regional boards have the necessary clout and profile to do the job that we all support them in doing?
    Angela Eagle: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the great work that she has done on water and related issues. We know that she speaks with a great deal of expertise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already had discussions with the agency about enforcement. We want to make it clear that we want it to be a rigorous regulator and guardian of the environment, to prosecute where necessary and without hesitation, and to play its role in preventing pollution and other abuses of the environment by taking action, where possible, well in advance.
    Mr. Rowe: I must confess that I am slightly confused about the Labour party's policy. It seems that it complains bitterly that too much power has been removed from local authorities to central Government. We have heard this afternoon, however, that the Government are thinking about having regional development agencies while thinking about strengthening the powers of the central Government agency. Exactly what is the Government's policy on local, regional and central government?
    Angela Eagle: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is confused. Some 95 per cent. of the Environment Agency's work force work at regional and local level, where they have to deliver a service. Accountability is clearly important. The move towards regional agencies and, we hope, regional devolution in the end, is an evolutionary

    97
    process. How powers will be dispersed down depends on how regions wish to develop. That is an open issue that will evolve.

    Town Centre Initiatives
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy towards town centre initiatives. [4670]
    Mr. Caborn: Town centre initiatives can play an important role in helping to maintain the vitality and viability of our town and city centres.
    Mr. Vaz: I welcome the Government's commitment to promoting and protecting our town centres. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as using planning powers more effectively, we must encourage and foster relations between local government and the private sector, particularly the retail private sector, to encourage more people to live, work and shop in our high streets?
    Mr. Caborn: Yes, very much so. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work before the general election to bring together groups and foster the ideas that he has mentioned. The Government are taking action on two studies through the Association of Town Centre Management and will develop those themes. There is a political consensus, which is reflected in the Environment Committee's report on out-of-town shopping. When the Government respond to that report in two or three weeks' time, we hope to develop that consensus, addressing some of the problems that my hon. Friend talked about.
    Mr. Pickles: To encourage people to come back and live in city centres, some new homes must be built there. What percentage have the Government set as a target for development on brown-field sites in cities? How much erosion of green-field sites do they expect in the next five years?
    Mr. Caborn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that those issues are part of district plans. There is a forecast of 4.2 million homes to be built by 2016. It is important that a general consensus emerges in district plans and regional structure plans. There will be difficult decisions, but the consensus is to try to ensure that developments take place in city centres before other areas are developed.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the property values represented by the individual bands for council tax purposes. [4671]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We want to discuss whether any changes should be made to the structure of the council tax valuation bands with local government associations and others before reaching a view. Any changes that might be proposed will be the subject of widespread consultation.
    Mr. Sanders: May I put in a plea for those who reside in mobile homes and come in the bottom band of council
    98
    tax? The value of their homes is half the value of their council tax band. I invite the Minister to consider whether that situation should continue.
    Mr. Raynsford: We recognise that all dwellings, including caravans and mobile homes, are banded according to their open market value. Many caravans and mobile homes come at the bottom of band A. Some occupiers of such homes feel a genuine sense of grievance. However, changes to the bands are a complex issue that raises problems that go wider than any individual group. We are considering the issue, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it must be considered in the round with all the other factors. We should not move precipitately towards a change.
    Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in old industrial towns such as Burnley, where well over half the properties are in band A, there is a good case for changes and the introduction of at least one band lower than the current band A?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend raises a question about the proportion of properties in band A. The case for reconsideration of band A has been put forcefully by many commentators. Others have suggested reconsideration of some other bands. I repeat that the issue has considerable implications for the fairness of the council tax structure. Major changes in banding would involve the possibility of a revaluation. Careful consideration is needed before any decisions are reached.

    Air Quality
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the recent report of the royal commission on environmental pollution regarding air quality. [4672]
    Mr. Meacher: I welcome the contribution of the royal commission on environmental pollution's 18th report to stimulating further public debate about the environmental impact of transport, including on air quality. I am looking forward to reading the commission's follow-up report later in the year.
    Mr. Robathan: The new Government have made some very encouraging sounds about reducing dependence on private motor cars and motor cars in general, which I generally welcome. Will the Minister therefore take on board a suggestion that I made to his predecessors that we should look—[Interruption.] Should not he, and the Deputy Prime Minister with his diverse responsibilities, look very carefully at the number of ministerial cars that travel very short distances for no good gain, since a tremendous saving could be made for the benefit of air quality?
    Mr. Meacher: I am sure that we can look into that issue. I agree that we are intending to discourage the use of cars for short journeys where there is an appropriate alternative. It is true that half of all car journeys in this country are—I think—of less than two miles. In many cases, there is no doubt that it would be more sensible and desirable if people, including Ministers on the appropriate occasion, walked or used public transport.

    Inland Waterways
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to encourage greater commercial use of inland waterways. [4694]
    Mr. Prescott: I can confirm that I am looking at this in my integrated transport review.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for a significant number of constituents of mine to be kept awake every night as a result of noise nuisance arising from heavy lorries carrying bulk cargoes? Does he also agree that it is unacceptable that an extensive waterways network in England, such as that which we have in West Yorkshire, is scarcely used for commercial transportation? May I urge him to bring forward radical proposals to ensure that such bulk cargoes are in future moved wherever possible by water and suggest that, if he wants to introduce such a scheme on a pilot basis, West Yorkshire would very much welcome it?
    Mr. Prescott: I assure my colleague that lorries will play an important part in the movement of freight, but agree that much more can be done with freight and waterways, where there is capacity to be developed. Our programme and review will look at the integration of various forms of transport. We certainly think that waterways can make more of a contribution. I am aware that a freight integration centre is being developed in my hon. Friend's area for channel tunnel freight. That provides us with an excellent opportunity. I am prepared to consider his point.

    Road Congestion (Southend-on-Sea)
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will initiate an inquiry into the congestion of roads in and around Southend-on-Sea; and if he will consider a bypass road linking Shoeburyness with the A 127. [4695]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): No, those are both matters for Essex county council and the new Southend unitary authority which becomes fully operational next April.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Although there has been a huge improvement in the efficiency of rail transport in Southend-on-Sea, is the Minister aware that genuinely—I am not trying to make any political point—the nightmare of congestion in Southend appears to me to be infinitely worse than in any comparable borough and causes especial problems for the people of Shoeburyness and Thorpe Bay, which are the furthest from London? Will the Department be able to offer any help or advice in solving the complex problem, which sadly, despite their efforts, both the county council and the borough council appear unable to resolve?
    Ms Jackson: The advice that the Government would offer seems to be being incorporated in Southend already. It is a properly integrated transport package which lays particular emphasis on properly integrated public
    100
    transport, cycle lanes and walking, so that there is an alternative to an over-dependence on car usage, which cannot be the way forward.

    Park-and-ride Schemes
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of park-and-ride schemes in reducing traffic flows in town centres. [4696]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): Research shows that park and ride increases the attractiveness of town centres, but there is no evidence that schemes by themselves reduce congestion. They are more likely to do so if they are part of package that also includes measures to deter unrestrained use of private vehicles, together with the provision of an improved public transport system.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for such a comprehensive reply. Local councils often seem to spend public money willy-nilly on such schemes because it is politically correct to do so. Will he ensure that the research that his Department has done is passed to local authorities? We have had great success in Swanage with our park-and-ride scheme, which involves using a steam railway, but that seems to be due to the attractiveness of using the steam railway. In Weymouth, we have tried such schemes and spent a lot of money with no effect.
    Dr. Strang: Yes, I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. He rightly refers to research and I expect that he has read the Transport Research Laboratory's report, which was published recently. I encourage others to read it. Park and ride can play an important role, but local judgments must be made of local circumstances.
    Mr. Stevenson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the A50 road scheme means that traffic is being pushed through the middle of my constituency and that traffic flows in town centres are set to increase. Is he aware that phase 1(b) of that road scheme is now nine months over contract? Will he investigate the reasons for that significant overrun and the possibility of compensation for businesses that are affected?
    Dr. Strang: I am aware of my hon. Friend's great concern about the time that it has taken to implement that contract. Clearly, it is vital that we try to stay on time with those projects and I shall be happy to write to him once I have looked into the details.
    Mr. Chidgey: I am pleased to hear the Minister recognise that park-and-ride schemes can be effective parts of local transport packages. Does he agree that, to build quality partnerships with bus operators, local authorities require funding to fulfil their part of the bargain? Is he prepared to provide local authorities with the means to raise those funds by allowing them to retain receipts from penalty notices on motorists who transgress by violating bus lanes and parking requirements? That would give local authorities the cash stream that they need to introduce local transport packages.
    Dr. Strang: I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that we must first make effective use of central

    101
    Government funds that already go to local authorities. Park-and-ride schemes can make a contribution, but an efficient, speedy and reliable public transport service must connect the park to the town centre. Furthermore, when vehicles are left in the parks, they must be safe and untampered with when people return to them.

    Railway Industry (Claims Handling)
    Mr. Kidney: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the claims-handling procedure in the privatised railway industry. [4697]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: The Rail Industry Disputes Resolution Committee is currently reviewing the claims-handling procedures for licensed operators. In addition, the Rail Regulator is reviewing third party liability insurance for vehicles outside the licensing regime.
    Mr. Kidney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the first test of the Tory Government's claim scheme for privatised railways came at Stafford in March 1996, when two trains collided, two Royal Mail workers died, more than 20 were injured and one train left the track and struck a row of houses? All the licensed companies had to do was deny liability and the whole scheme collapsed. Some 16 months later, no one has been helped. Will the Minister consider that story and see whether some good can be rescued from it? Will she assure me that the Labour Government will improve the system for handling claims?
    Ms Jackson: As my hon. Friend is aware, decisions on liability and compensation following the Stafford accident are matters for the parties involved and, ultimately, the courts. However, I sincerely hope that the railway industry will recognise the suffering that has been experienced by his constituents and settle claims, even though no party admits liability. I intend to write to Railtrack, English, Welsh and Scottish Railways and CAIB UK Ltd. on the issue and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall represent his concerns and his constituents' suffering in the strongest possible terms.

    Trunk Roads Programme (East Sussex)
    Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of the trunk roads programme as it affects East Sussex. [4698]
    Dr. Strang: All trunk road schemes in East Sussex will be included in the review of the roads programme that I announced on 19 June. The Weald and Downland design, build, finance and operate scheme is being considered as part of the accelerated review of schemes requiring urgent decisions.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister acknowledge that he inherited from the previous Government several environmentally destructive schemes that represent poor value for money, and that many Members welcome the Government's decision to carry out the roads review? Can he assure the House that the potential for transfer from road to rail will be taken into account in any review?
    102
    However, notwithstanding my previous comments, does the Minister recognise that, on the Polegate bypass, the Government would be unwise to throw the baby out with the bath water? It is important for a scheme of sorts to progress at Polegate because the county council has completed the A22 north of Eastbourne and, with only half the scheme completed, that would leave Polegate full of traffic.
    Dr. Strang: I agree that, as part of the wider review, of course we need to consider the relative strengths of roads as opposed to rail and vice versa. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to prejudge in any way the outcome of our decisions on such schemes, but they are important, and I hope that he will welcome the fact that, where urgent decisions are required, we shall not allow our long-term review to hold things up. We are prepared to bite the bullet, and shall announce the decisions later this month.

    Pilotage Limits (Thames Estuary)
    Mr. Pond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the proposals put forward by the Port of London authority for a review of pilotage limits on the Thames estuary; and if he will make a statement. [4699]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I have made no assessment of proposals from the Port of London authority. I understand that they involve reviewing the arrangements for compulsory pilotage of vessels of certain sizes in the port. Those are primarily matters for the authority, but it must consult interests in the port about any changes, and I understand that it will do so shortly.
    Mr. Pond: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is she aware that, although the pilots committee has said that the safety and environmental implications of those proposals could be immense, there has been no wider open public debate on those implications? I urge my hon. Friend to apply whatever influence she has with the Port of London authority to encourage it to engage in that necessary public debate.
    Ms Jackson: I understand that the review is not yet at the stage where the Port of London authority can issue formal proposals for consultation. When it is at that stage, the authority will consult, as it is obliged to—and it will consult not only pilots but shipowners and all users of the port. The authority has asked for a meeting with me, and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall raise his concerns at that meeting.
    Mr. Ottaway: As it is proposed that the obligation to carry a pilot should now be determined according to a vessel's draught rather than its length, is the Minister aware that that could result in an extra burden being imposed on shipowners and other river users? How many extra vessels will be caught by the proposal? Can she give the House an assurance that further regulations will not be introduced for regulation's sake, when there is no apparent increased risk or danger to shipping?
    Ms Jackson: I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should ask me to comment on proposals that, as my previous answer made clear, are not yet at the formal stage when they must be issued for consultation. With reference to my previous answer, the Port of London authority has asked for a meeting with me, and I shall be interested to hear what it has to say.

    Birmingham Airport
    Mr. John M. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of Birmingham airport and the stage it has reached in its progress from municipal status to the private sector. [4700]
    Dr. Strang: Birmingham airport moved into the private sector on 26 March. I understand that, subject to obtaining detailed planning permission, it hopes to begin the first phase of the expansion of the terminal building in the autumn.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that Birmingham airport, with its move away from local government status, has been a great success story? Given its current hybrid state, partly municipal and partly owned by the private sector, would it not be a good idea to finish the job and get the airport properly and thoroughly into the private sector, thus restoring significant capital to the local authorities?
    Dr. Strang: No, I am not prepared to make a judgment on that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Birmingham airport has been a tremendous success over the years: more than 5 million passengers passed through it in 1996. That was achieved under full municipal ownership. The airport has decided to move to being a company with the majority in the private sector, and I wish it well.
    Mr. Burden: I also draw attention to the importance of Birmingham international airport to the local economy and welcome the new investment. I welcome the use to which the local authorities are putting the proceeds, including tackling youth joblessness and providing infrastructure for reduced class sizes. Is it not unfortunate that the previous Government left those local authorities in a Catch-22 situation by starving the airport of the investment that it needed? It is now expanding, but the partner organisation is a direct subsidiary of the Irish Government.
    Dr. Strang: The House will agree that the plans on which the airport is currently working are important: an 80 per cent. expansion in the terminal capacity, and a 50 per cent. increase in the number of stands for aircraft. We all wish it well in its new ownership.
    Miss McIntosh: Is the Minister happy with the level of investment in the British airports system as it—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is a narrow question on the future of Birmingham airport. The hon. Lady should restrict her remarks to Birmingham airport.
    Miss McIntosh: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I apologise.
    104
    Is the Minister concerned that the level of investment in Birmingham airport may be radically reduced with the introduction of the windfall tax on the privatised utilities?
    Dr. Strang: No, I am not concerned at all.

    Public Transport (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Marten Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's initiatives to address public transport problems in rural areas. [4701]
    Dr. Strang: I fully recognise the particular transport needs of rural communities and the crucial role for public transport. The rural dimension of transport policy and the need to enhance public transport services will be addressed in the fundamental review of transport policy announced last month.
    Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Countryside Commission report of about three years ago, suggesting that rural transport levels would soar, possibly doubling in some areas. Has he any plans to ask local authorities to introduce experimental package approaches to transport planning, such as have been common in urban areas in the past couple of years?
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is certainly the case that local authorities have a crucial role to play in transport policy. All those issues, and especially rural transport, will be addressed in the comprehensive transport review that we are conducting in advance of the White Paper.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I understand the Minister's reply, but does not he accept that, in the real world, public transport will never serve some of the more remote rural villages, such as Kettleshulme, Wincle, Wildboarclough, Saltersford and Allgreave in my constituency, unless the Government are to have an extremely heavy funding liability through local government? Is it not therefore essential, in considering petrol tax and other fiscal measures, to balance the interests of rural areas that will never have public transport and those of other areas?
    Dr. Strang: Of course, there is truth in the hon. Gentleman's point that there are remote areas where a bus service will never run right to the door or even within walking distance, but it is also true that in many rural areas, as a consequence of deregulation and unrestricted competition, there has been a diminution in rural bus services. We want to tackle that problem.
    Sir Norman Fowler: While I strongly support all improvements in public transport in rural areas, some of which have been made possible by deregulation, does the Minister agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is entirely right and that many people in rural areas will remain dependent on their ears? Is it not important that their needs should be taken into account in framing policy?
    Dr. Strang: I have accepted that point, but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that a single bus operator that is operating a service from early morning until late in the evening can subsidise the off-peak services from the profits of the peak-time, heavily loaded buses. In many rural areas, plenty of operators are willing to operate buses during peak hours, but young people have found themselves stranded in rural communities with no bus to take them into their local town or get them home in the evening.

    Bus Deregulation
    Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what plans he has to discuss the future of bus deregulation with local authorities. [4702]
    Mr. Prescott: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced last week, we have launched a review of bus policy as part of the fundamental review of transport policy which I announced on 5 June. Local authorities will be among those consulted.
    Helen Jackson: My right hon. Friend will know that those of us in Sheffield are aware that one cannot build an integrated public transport system with a totally deregulated set-up. What will he do to control the present free-for-all in cities such as Sheffield? Will he consider introducing a minimum standard of reliability and allowing local authorities to set environmental guidelines on the number of buses that can travel through city centres or on main routes?
    Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend that a deregulated bus system has been the enemy of an integrated transport system, and nowhere is that more true than in Sheffield. In that city, a regulated transport system, working under the passenger transport authority—set up by Labour—got people to use public transport more and their cars less. That is a matter of fact. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) told us that the bus system is better following deregulation. I appreciate that, having spent some time with his family, he may have missed some of the recent reports which show that deregulation has produced more mileage, fewer people travelling on buses, higher prices and less of a networked system. That is why we are right to carry out a review and to aim for an integrated transport system. Sheffield led the way, and we shall look at its experiences in the review.
    Mr. Garnier: Can the Deputy Prime Minister envisage a re-regulated bus system without increased taxation or public expenditure?
    Mr. Prescott: I know it is difficult for the hon. and learned Gentleman to think other than that everything is paid for by increased taxation, but I invite him to look at the ridership on buses in a deregulated system. Fewer people travel on buses because buses are less reliable and of a poorer quality. If we increased ridership, we would increase income from buses and the amount of trips from a particular bus. In that way, we could increase revenue to pay for the changes to improve the transport system.

    Coach Safety
    Ann Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of existing coach safety regulations; and what plans he has to increase the protection of coach passengers. [4703]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Existing regulations on coach safety include requirements for vehicle construction, roadworthiness testing, driver licensing and operational standards. There is a continuing process of improving standards both nationally and internationally, supported by research.
    Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend will remember the Raglan coach crash, in which 10 people died and 33 were injured—many of them were my constituents. It took a long time to bring prosecutions and the families are still distressed at the outcome. Has she given thought to the idea from the Consumers Association to set up an independent accident unit to investigate transport disasters and to ensure that changes to bring about greater safety are properly implemented?
    Ms Jackson: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my sincere condolences, and I can well imagine the trauma that her constituents suffered following that appalling accident. I am aware of the suggestions to which she referred, and her concerns have been expressed to me from a variety of sources. I intend to examine, with all possible speed, the proposal to which she referred, and other representations.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady make use of her existing powers to control emissions from coaches and buses, which endanger both passengers and people in the vicinity of coaches? Is she aware that one of the greatest causes of pollution is the emission of particulates from such vehicles?
    Ms Jackson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a requirement for all public service vehicles to be tested annually. I understand that the Vehicle Inspectorate checked 29,000 vehicles at the roadside last year. I find very encouraging the co-operation between vehicle manufacturers, bus and coach providers and the oil industry in pushing forward alternative fuels, which, as I am sure that he is well aware, could reduce some of the worst effects of emissions from existing fuels.

    London Underground
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the funding of London Underground. [4704]
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman's party left us with a legacy of reductions in Government funding for London Underground and cost overruns on the Jubilee line

    107
    extension. Together, they total more than £700 million. Those reductions were made to funding levels which were already below what London Underground needed. Against that background, we are looking urgently at the options for public-private partnerships to increase investment in the core underground network.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: As the right hon. Gentleman adopts that attitude, perhaps he would like to confirm that annual investment in London Underground, excluding special projects such as the Jubilee line extension, has averaged more than £500 million a year during the 1990s. That compares with an average annual investment of less than £50 million in the 1970s. On reflection, does he agree that commendable progress has been made, that the problem facing London Underground is the chronic
    108
    under-investment of the 1960s and 1970s, and that the best way forward would be privatisation, using the receipts for the necessary investment?
    Mr. Prescott: I could bandy figures with the hon. Gentleman about the past but, in reality, last year's investment figures are similar to those for 1979, when the last Government came to power. Whatever the case, London Underground has insufficient resources to meet the investment requirements of a modernised system. That is the situation which I inherited from the Conservative party. I intend to meet investment requirements through the study that we are doing on public-private partnerships. While the last Government talked about full privatisation of the underground, which we totally reject, there was no guarantee that the moneys from its sale would have gone towards investment in London Underground.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, in response to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), you made it clear that you regarded freedom of speech as one of the most cherished privileges of parliamentary democracy. In the light of the confusion that still surrounds the freedom of speech permitted to some Welsh Labour Members, and given that the full facts of the matter have not been given to the House—or to you, as you said yesterday—and given the continued absence of the Secretary of State for Wales from the Dispatch Box to dispel the confusion and present the facts, do you think it appropriate that the matter should now be fully considered by the House authorities and, if necessary, by the Standards and Privileges Committee?
Madam Speaker: I have nothing further to add to what I said yesterday, and I stand firmly by the remarks that I made then.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As, in the last Parliament, much progress was made in the battle against sleaze in the House, I note that there have been a couple of worrying incidents that require the House's attention. Last week, the fraud squad raided premises that had been provided for the Leader of the Opposition for his leadership campaign. I understand also that the company concerned made a financial donation.
We also know that another company, City Mortgage Corporation, whose business is to impoverish its tenants and which is run by a man most of us would fairly describe as a crook, has given £20,000 to the Leader of the Opposition. Should he not come here to clear the air and make a statement?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that he feels should be put into the public domain, he should immediately let the Commissioner for Standards have it. That is why we have a Commissioner for Standards to investigate such matters. If the hon. Gentleman has anything, he should not use it across the Floor but should give all the information to the Commissioner, who will consider it.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, Madam Speaker, will you consider the following proposition? The other day—
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not consider propositions. I try to respond sensibly to points of order, which I did yesterday. My comments are in Hansard, and they stand. I have nothing further to add.
Mr. Soames rose—
Hon. Members: No.
Madam Speaker: Order. If it is a point of order, I must hear it.
Mr. Soames: I am sorry to push the matter further, but my point is related not to what you said yesterday but to the point made in the House last week—the fact that the Leader of the House kept saying that the Prime Minister was satisfied with the outcome of his inquiries in relation to the Secretary of State for Wales. I raised a point of order with you, saying that it was a matter not of whether the Prime Minister was satisfied with the inquiries, but of whether the House of Commons was satisfied with them.
The volume of questions and the points raised with you since business questions last week clearly show that the House is by no means satisfied with the answers that it has received. Is it not right that a more detailed response be given by the Secretary of State for Wales, so that the House may be satisfied that there have been no misunderstandings?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I will take no further points of order on this matter. Let me respond to the point that has been made. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, he should try to pursue the matter in other ways. I have made my statement. If he wishes to pursue the matter, he might try to do so through the usual channels. I am not responsible for what hon. Members from any party say.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I will take no further points of order on this matter. I have dealt with it three or four times today and yesterday. As far as I am concerned, it is finished.

BILLS PRESENTED
  PUBLIC HOUSE (NAMES)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the names of public houses; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 32].
  REPRESENTATION OF GIBRALTAR AT WESTMINSTER AND IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Dr. John Marek and Mr. Nicholas Winterton, presented a Bill to provide for the representation of Gibraltar by a Member of Parliament, subject to limitations, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; for the inclusion of Gibraltar in a European parliamentary constituency; for the right of the Chief Minister to petition the House of Commons at the bar of the House; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 33].

  REPRESENTATION OF DEPENDENCIES AT WESTMINSTER
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Dr. John Marek and Mr. Nicholas Winterton, presented a Bill to provide for limited representation for dependencies other than Gibraltar at the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by a non-voting

  111
  delegate and for the right of the Chief Ministers to petition the House of Commons at the bar of the House; to improve for elected members of the Legislative Councils access to and communications with Members of the House of Commons; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to he printed [Bill 34].

School Absenteeism
3.36 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place duties upon schools, local education authorities and parents to identify promptly and act as necessary in cases of child absenteeism from school, to ensure attendance or attention to the absent child's educational needs; and for related purposes.
I am honoured to present my School Absenteeism Bill to the new Labour Government for their consideration. It deals with the difficult problem of child absenteeism from primary schools. It seeks to speed up the process by which schools and local education authorities act to ensure school attendance as a basic prerequisite to meeting the child's educational needs. The problem is severe.
On 4 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) apprised my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the astonishing fact that 100.000 children were absent from school in England and Wales. He replied:
"My hon. Friend is absolutely right. … There has to be a better way to approach the problem. If not, we shall find that social costs mount up, … and those 100,000 young people may also end up later incapable of finding work or working for any length of time."—[Official Report, a June 1997; Vol. 295. c. 386–87.]
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out that absenteeism placed children at risk of being drawn into patterns of anti-social and criminal behaviour.
So the Government believe that regular school attendance is vital in fostering social development, self-discipline, concentration and good attainment. Studies by the Office for Standards in Education and other distinguished studies confirm that irregular attendance undermines the educational process and leads to educational disadvantage. Poor examination results correlate closely to non-attendance.
In my constituency, which covers part of the London borough of Waltham Forest, absenteeism is twice the national average. While local efforts are closing the gap, the national average is getting worse. The causes of absenteeism are well documented. Deprivation is linked with school non-attendance, both in my constituency and throughout the nation. Some parents struggle above their poor circumstances to give their children a flying start in education. One Vietnamese refugee in a local high-rise council block in my constituency is proud to have a full-time job at Tesco and a son at Cambridge, but he is exceptional.
A way forward could be to identify vulnerable groups within the broad categorisation of deprivation. For example, there is strong evidence that children of working mothers attend school more regularly than children with mothers at home. A targeted programme in schools could help.
In my Bill, the problem of absenteeism is separated from that of truancy. Unauthorised absenteeism at primary school usually arises from the failure of carers to exercise their responsibility. Truancies often occur among older children, and arise from bad educational habits that are laid down early in their school life. By focusing on initial absenteeism among primary school children, the Government can nip the problem in the bud.

113
Small children with learning readiness are potentially good achievers. Coupled with the Government's programme to reduce class sizes, a carefully worked-out strategy could bring about startling improvements in attendance and achievement.
In England, there are many unauthorised absences. The numbers given range from the report contained in The Sunday Times of 15 June 1997, which said that about 568,000 primary school children missed at least half a day last year without permission, to a Unison survey that found that 80,000 children scarcely attend school at all.
As the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) is already well aware, under the current law, parents, schools and local education authorities share responsibility for school attendance. The law is comprehensive and complex. There is a great deal of bureaucracy involved when schools disseminate information to a wide range of public bodies. I should like the process to be streamlined in order to release more human resources in schools for early preventive action against unauthorised absenteeism.
Close scrutiny of the figures suggests that there are some avenues of change relating to the role of local education authorities. Between September 1991 and September 1994, the total number of school attendance orders rose from 40 to 56 a year; education supervision orders rose from 81 to 314 a year; the number of prosecutions of parents rose from 2,803 to 3,688 a year. Those figures show that LEAs generally circumvent the use of school attendance and education supervision orders. While prosecutions have an important role to play, the dominant mode of "prosecution first" is primarily about punishing the parent, not necessarily ensuring the child's right to education.
I propose that school attendance orders be brought into greater use before prosecutions. I also propose that head teachers be given leave to apply directly to court for school attendance orders, thereby ensuring that children re-enter school at the earliest opportunity. My Bill would ensure that there was a fast-track procedure in magistrates courts for obtaining those orders.
Statistics show a wide fluctuation in the will of local education authorities to undertake prosecutions. Will the Minister consider taking steps towards ensuring a more co-ordinated response from LEAs?
The education welfare officer plays a key role before any legal action is taken on unauthorised absences. It has been shown that, if a respected figure such as an education welfare officer has immediate contact with the pupil's home from the first day of absence, the action has a dramatic effect on improving attendance rates. Setting up networks of help, such as trained volunteer mentors for telephone and home contact, is also extremely helpful and cost-effective. I propose that first-day unauthorised absence contact should be made mandatory in all primary schools.
There have also been some remarkable successes in schools serving deprived areas; we need to make such best practice the norm. My hon. Friend the Member for
114
Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) is the chair of governors at Kelvin Grove primary school in Lewisham. Belinda Kennedy, who runs that school's attendance project, tells me:
"The benefits are dramatic. Our unauthorised absence rate has dropped to only 0.5 per cent. It makes me wonder how many other schools are in urgent need of a simple, everyday approach to improving attendance and punctuality."
The main initiative by the previous Government was the grants education support and training—GEST—scheme, whereby £15.4 million was allocated to 90 English LEAs in 1995–96. An evaluation by an independent team commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment says:
"Schools can, and do, have a significant impact in improving attendance and reducing disaffection."
However, the range of projects is very wide and the methods of evaluation primitive.
My Bill, by contrast, builds on carefully targeted initiatives: a mandatory one-day unauthorised absence contact initiative front primary school to home; primary schools to introduce targeted attendance programmes for at-risk groups—for example, children of at-home mothers; and school attendance and education supervision orders emphasised over prosecution orders. It would establish a fast-track procedure for head teachers to obtain attendance orders through magistrates courts; and escort orders, whereby courts were given a new probation-like power to order parents to take absenting children to schools, backed up by the threat of a substantial fine.
The Government would clarify priorities and procedures, so that local education authorities operated to similar standards. Schools and education welfare officers in multicultural areas would ensure information and support for non-English-speaking parents. The Government would evaluate and disseminate best practice initiatives nationally; information-gathering processes on absenteeism would be streamlined; and human resources in schools would be moved towards earlier intervention on behalf of the child.
I fully support the Government's commitment to education, education, education, and I hope that the Minister will make use of my small contribution via the Bill to reinforce the importance of primary school attendance.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Charlotte Atkins, Mr. Richard Burden, Ms Judith Church, Mr. Tony Colman, Miss Melanie Johnson, Mr. David Kidney, Ms Oona King, Judy Mallaber, Mr. Chris Pond, Ms Christine Russell and Mr. Paddy Tipping.

School Absenteeism
  SCHOOL ABSENTEEISM
  Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to place duties upon schools, local education authorities and parents to identify promptly and act as necessary in cases of child absenteeism from school, to ensure attendance or attention to the absent child's educational needs; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 35].

International Development
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this house do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
3.47 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I am delighted that we have the opportunity today to debate this important motion. I see this debate as an important part of the consultation process in which we are currently engaged as we move towards the publication of a White Paper on international development in the autumn.
This afternoon, I want to talk about the single greatest challenge the world faces: eliminating poverty. I know that that seems outrageously ambitious—cynics might even say naive, but they are wrong. It is both an affordable and an achievable aim, and it is essential that we face up to the challenge if the 10 billion or so human beings who will then exist are to live in anything approaching peace and harmony in the second half of the next century. If we do not, the numbers of people might be much greater, and the strain on the earth catastrophic. As I have said before, those who believe in compassion and social justice should support that aim; but so should the selfish and the greedy, if they wish to leave the proceeds of their endeavours to their grandchildren.
It is my view that we are living at the beginning of a new political era. That creates a real opportunity for progress. In the past 30 to 40 years, we have gone through two extremes, both of which failed many developing countries: first, the bloated state; then, market idolatry—the period from which we are just emerging, and the adoration of which concept brought the Conservative party to such a catastrophic low.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way, on that very point?
Clare Short: I will give way later. Perhaps, if the hon. Gentleman thinks a little before intervening, his intervention will be a little wiser than his interventions normally are.
Both the state and the markets are good servants but bad masters. Governments and markets must work together. Both must be transparent, and made to serve the people. Recent political events suggest that the people of the world are at last voting for social justice, both at home and abroad.
Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Clare Short: In a moment.
I am certain that that is what the people of Britain want. I know that it is a cliché to say that the world is becoming a smaller place, but we can now travel across it and see things in person, or on our televisions, that our grandparents would never have dreamed of. That is bound to change the way in which people think about world problems, and such changes make it feasible to seek to build, alongside economic globalisation, a global moral community.
Mr. Fabricant: The right hon. Lady has spoken of the relationship between international development and
116
private co-operation. Does she recall that, at Question Time last week, she was unaware of the valuable work done by privatised water companies in providing free, clean water for people in developing countries? Will she now acknowledge the work done by Water Aid, whose patron is the Prince of Wales? It is doing that work in 13 countries throughout Africa and Asia.
Does the right hon. Lady accept that Water Aid's money comes from privatised companies such as South Staffordshire Water and Severn Trent Water in Lichfield? As she was unaware of all that last week, may I urge her to read those companies' annual reports?
Clare Short: I did know about Water Aid—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has just spoken at length. Will he now allow me to answer him? That is basic politeness, if nothing else.
I have come across Water Aid's endeavours, and all such endeavours are welcome; but, in the face of the world's need for clean water and sanitation. Water Aid's is a small contribution. Charitable contributions aimed at improving the very bad image of water companies in Britain are certainly welcome, but they are not enough to make the progress that we need in order to supply everyone in the world with clean water and proper sanitation.
Mr. Fabricant: That is generous.
Clare Short: It is the truth. It should not be thought that such a tiny contribution, perhaps prompted by social guilt, is enough to provide for all the people in the world.[Interruption.] I shall get on with serious discussion of these serious matters.
All the conditions to which I have referred mean that this is an ideal time for the creation of my Department as a separate Department of State, headed by a Cabinet Minister. My Department's job is development, and nothing else. Commercial and political considerations are the perfectly proper work of Government, but export promotion and short-term political relationships are not the work of my Department. We have been given the most noble and honourable work that anyone could be asked to do—but this is not work just for soft hearts; it is also work for hard heads. There is no decent future for the world if we do not succeed.
Clearly, every generation has had the moral duty to reach out to the poor and needy, and to try to create a more just world. The present generation, however, must rise to the challenge; otherwise, global warming, population pressure, spreading deserts, polluted and over-fished oceans and water shortages will create catastrophes that will endanger the lives of all people and countries—rich and poor, northern and southern, developed and developing.
There is no privatised and purchasable solution to those problems. The grandchildren of the richest people in the world need a healthy planet as much as the hungriest street child living on the margins of existence. We must solve the problems together—and benefit everyone—or they will not be solved at all.
The United Nations special session on sustainable development has just ended in New York, five years after the Rio summit. Rio, and the process leading up to it,

117
undoubtedly constituted an important moment in history. A good deal has been achieved as a result, in particular the mobilising of opinion—especially among young people—about the need for sustainable development and the importance of protecting our global and national environment. Binding conventions have been established for some global environmental issues. The outcome of the New York meeting was positive but limited, partly because the Governments of the developed and developing world see their interests so differently.
The process that started at Rio was about the rich countries collaborating with poor countries to help them to achieve sustainable development and reduce poverty. The global environmental facility, which exists to help poor countries to meet the extra costs of protecting the global environment as they develop is important, and we are committed to a further substantial replenishment later this year.
However, at Rio we also promised additional help to assist with the development of poor countries more generally, and the rich countries have not delivered. As a result, the developing countries think that we are more concerned with protecting our own way of life than about their development. If they think that we have created our riches by using up the world's resources, and that we are now imposing rules to protect our riches and prevent their development, they will, quite reasonably, refuse to co-operate. That was the mood at the beginning of the UN special session.
One of the Government's actions in New York was to reassert the basic Rio message that tackling poverty and protecting the environment are inextricably linked, and that eliminating poverty is essential to caring for the planet and is the bridge that unites the interests of north and south. An important part of the Prime Minister's speech at the General Assembly, which was universally warmly welcomed, was to commit the UK to helping towards the important over-arching goal, of which I spoke earlier, of reducing by half the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015, and to reverse the decline in British development assistance.
Politicians often pretend to know everything. Conservative Members will know about that. Vanity is the occupational disease of politics, but, of course, politicians do not know everything, and the good ones have to understand that it is their duty to listen to people's fears and worries, find the ideas to create solutions, and mobilise action to implement those ideas. That is the second reason for this being the ideal time for the creation of my Department. The ideas are in place, and our job now is to mobilise enough political will to ensure that they are implemented.
There are two documents which everyone should read. The first is from the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and is called "Shaping the 21st Century". It reflects the collective views of Development Ministers, heads of aid agencies and other senior officials who are responsible for development co-operation.
The report reflects on the lessons of such co-operation over the past 50 years and proposes strategies for the first part of the next century. It proposes a global development partnership effort that focuses on a limited number of key success indicators that are drawn from the conclusions of the great UN conferences of the past decade or so.
118
The over-arching goal is that of reducing by half by 2015 the proportion of people living in extreme poverty. There are several key social development goals feeding into that aim. They include universal primary education in all countries by 2015; progress towards gender equality and the empowerment of women; and improvements in health care systems and mortality rates. They also include targets for implementing national strategies for sustainable development in all countries by 2005. That is to ensure that current trends in the loss of environmental resources are effectively reversed at both global and national levels by 2015.
The second document I recommend is the United Nations human development report 1997, which has just been published. That report, like the OECD development assistance committee report, bases its judgment that the elimination of poverty is feasible in part on the progress and lessons of the past 50 years. It notes that, since 1960, in little more than a generation, child death rates in developing countries have been more than halved. Malnutrition rates have declined by almost a third. The proportion of children who are out of primary school has fallen from more than half to less than a quarter, and the proportion of rural families who do not have access to safe water has fallen from nine tenths to about a quarter. The report also notes not only that there have been substantial advances in income in many countries, but that there has been great progress in life expectancy and in access to basic social services.
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to repeat almost word for word a speech that she made on 26 June in a different environment?
Madam Speaker: I am not responsible for Ministers or Back Benchers' comments in the House. They are all responsible for their own speeches. I have not heard the Minister's speech before.
Clare Short: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. I included some of this text in my speech at the Commonwealth Institute recently. The speech is of profound importance, and has never been put before the House. If Conservative Members would take notice of it, we might have a wiser debate about some of the most important issues in politics.
Mr. Denis MacShane: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has made the same speech for five years.
Clare Short: Indeed. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) should not complain about anyone saying the same thing over and again.
Progress during the past 50 years in eliminating poverty—this is important—has been greater than in the previous 500 years of human existence. We have not done enough, but much has been achieved, and that achievement teaches us how to do the rest. That is the basis on which I believe that abject poverty could be eliminated from the world in our lifetime, or at least within the lifetime of our children. Clearly, the world could not commit itself to a more noble task as we approach a new millennium, but the challenges remain daunting. Advances have not been uniform, and poverty remains pervasive.
Dr. Liam Fox: The right hon. Lady has not yet mentioned trade in the elimination of poverty.

119
As Lomé is being reviewed, and as the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries arrangement, whereby large nations are put in the same bracket as small single-commodity nations, contains complications, does she have a view on whether that arrangement needs to be reviewed?
Clare Short: I do have a view. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Britain will hold the European Union presidency when the mandate for the Lomé renegotiation is put in place, so it is key that we get our thinking right. Some differentiation between the needs of countries in different stages of development should form part of the renegotiation. I have made a speech about that, and I would be happy to send it to the hon. Gentleman. It is an important matter, and it is vital that we get it right. The development assistance committee target of halving world poverty by 2015 should be incorporated in the Lomé renegotiation. The world should seriously sign up, through all its institutions, to meeting that target.
The two reports are the basis on which abject poverty could be eliminated from the world in our lifetime, but the challenges remain daunting. Advances have not been uniform, and poverty remains pervasive. We have gone forward and backwards in the past 50 years. That means that we can learn what succeeds and what conditions breed failure, but it remains true that more than a quarter of the developing world's people still live in extreme poverty. Some groups suffer more than others, particularly children, women and elderly people. New global pressures are creating or threatening further increases in poverty, just at the time when the possibilities for advance should be greater than ever.
The conclusion of the United Nations Development Programme report is that the elimination of poverty is affordable and achievable. What is lacking is the political will to achieve that end.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the UN, could some reflection be given to the UN's policy of imposing sanctions on countries such as Iraq? Whatever the difficulties with regard to the leadership, the effect is to throw the people of the river valleys—in this case, the Tigris and the Euphrates—into some of the most abject poverty that the present world knows, and the UN has a responsibility in that matter.
Clare Short: My hon. Friend knows that I share his concern about the suffering of the people of Iraq. We have to refine our capacity to take action against repressive Governments such as the evil Government in Iraq, without hurting the people living under such Governments. We could do more to refine the sanctions instrument, but that is a big project that we need to work on together.
I believe strongly that if people in this country and elsewhere believe that the elimination of poverty is achievable and not a hopeless enterprise they will demand action and help to generate that political will.
We hear much about compassion fatigue. We see constant pictures of disaster and famine. We get reports of human rights abuse, civil war, refugees and suffering. People worry increasingly about the state of the world, and about what will be left for their grandchildren. I do
120
not believe that there is any less compassion in the world today than there has ever been, but I do think that there is more despondency, and that this paralyses the will to act.
It is, of course, right that the media should bring the suffering of fellow human beings to our attention as a spur to action, but it is wrong that the reporting of development issues should create the impression that no progress is being made, and that none is possible. People need hope to be able to demand action.
So how is poverty to be eliminated? It is obvious that, because most of the poor live in the poorest countries of the world, economic growth is necessary if people are to escape from poverty. Growth rates of at least 6 to 7 per cent. are required if countries are to become better off in a sustainable way, particularly as high population growth may mean that the real increase is only a third or even a half of the growth figure.
Anything less than 2.5 per cent. effectively means a growth in poverty, but, while economic growth is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition to escape from poverty. Indeed, some economic growth can increase inequality and poverty, as we have seen so clearly over the past 20 years.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State quite rightly touches on population growth, but gives the impression that it is a symptom of poverty. Does she not accept that many people think that it is the root cause of poverty? Will she continue with the emphasis that the previous Government placed on population growth? Indeed, will she develop it even further?
Clare Short: I intend to do much more in this area than the previous Government. Population growth is an enormous, serious challenge to the people of the world. The current world population is 5.8 billion; it is due to rise to 7 billion by the turn of the century. Some projections say that, in the next century, it will increase to 10 billion and stabilise, or to 17 billion and be out of control. The population growth is in the poorest parts of the world and among the poorest populations, 50 per cent. of whom do not have access to contraception, and many of whom do not know whether their children will live.
We know that educating girls and giving women access to health care and to some sustainable livelihood leads to their taking control of the size of their families. That is how we bring about a stabilisation in population. The only way to achieve that is to have a just world in which all the people of the world have access to basic education, basic health care and clean water, so that they can take control of their own lives and know that their children will live. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this issue is of profound importance, and that, if we do not face it, the whole world will be in very severe difficulty.
Mr. Bernie Grant: There is much talk about the size of the population in Africa, but does my right hon. Friend agree that Africa is, in fact, depopulated as a result of the removal of more than 100 million people during the period of enslavement and colonisation, and that the growth that has taken place in other continents has not been matched by the growth in Africa? So when people say that Africa must control its population growth, that is not correct.
Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that slavery, in which African people sold other African people to

121
wretched slave owners, many of whom originated in our country, was a terrible tragedy for all the people involved and for Africa as well. I cannot say that I know what the population of Africa would be if there had not been slavery. I just do not have that information, so I cannot make a judgment about whether Africa is over or under-populated.
I know for certain, however, that the people of Africa—the women of Africa, the girls of Africa—are entitled to be educated, to have basic health care, reproductive health care, and to make their own decisions about the size of their families. The people of Africa will decide for themselves what the population of Africa should be.
Before the interventions, I was talking about the scale of economic growth required in poorer countries if we are to make progress in eliminating poverty. The same arguments apply not only to the developing but to the developed world. The United Nations human development report is a powerful reminder that more equitable distribution of the benefits of growth must be a top priority also for the United Kingdom. On the UNDP's figures, Britain is one of the most unequal countries in the world. Therefore, our development effort is not about us preaching to less developed countries: the lessons must be applied at home as well as abroad.
Good economic management means not only growth in the economy—as measured by some theoretical improvement in overall gross national product per capita—but the fact that many of the benefits of that growth reach members of the population who need them. Governments, and all public authorities, have obligations to all their people, and especially to poor people. Budgetary systems should ensure that the interests of the poor are protected and enhanced.
The state has a duty to make arrangements that provide all citizens with education, basic health care and clean water. The state must also create economic arrangements that give all citizens access to markets, in which they can sell their produce and their labour, and to security, appropriate technology and land, so that they can create sustainable livelihoods for themselves and their families.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that, in many of those countries, economic development is very much dependent on transport infrastructure. She will also know that transport infrastructure is a major British export to many of those countries, to the extent that it is supported by the aid and trade provision. She has, moreover, announced a review of the ATP programme.
My constituency is dependent—in some industries, it is very much dependent—on ATP. To take one specific example, we export railway lines around the world. Railway lines are very important in the development of many third-world countries.
Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, if decisions are taken on the ending or running down of the ATP programme, the Firms that are directly involved—often employing thousands of people—are fully consulted? Does she also agree that what really matters is not the ATP programme per se but that the programme is available only for projects that pass elementary tests of development soundness? If the projects pass those tests, surely we can maintain the programme.
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can assure him that the representations that he has
122
made—like the representations that any firm might like to make—are very welcome and will be fully considered. Allowing such representations to be made is the reason why I have made it clear that we are reviewing the aid and trade provision.
My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. I am reviewing our entire aid effort, to ensure that our entire effort is aimed towards eliminating poverty and helping the human development of the poorest people. It could be argued that ATP is a part of a previous philosophy in which any beneficial economic development was thought necessarily to result in the development of poor countries. That belief will have to be re-examined. We intend to focus on the need for human development of the poorest people.
Such development might require transport for access to market for very poor rural people, although it probably will not include big, sophisticated transport projects. Regardless of how we approach the matter, some projects are unlikely to be included if we are to redirect our efforts towards poverty elimination. Discussions will continue, however, and a full review will be conducted. The firms in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will, of course, be able to make representation s—[Interruption]
I do not know why the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) makes cynical remarks. We are debating a very serious matter. ATP was introduced by my illustrious predecessor, Judith Hart, to engage British firms in the development effort, and there is nothing cynical to be said about it. If it is true that we must redirect our efforts into poverty elimination and human development, there will be big implications for ATP. Everyone should take that into account. As I said, much of the research suggests that ATP is neither commercially nor developmentally beneficial. We must consider and examine that argument.
I was describing the duties of a modern state to its people in the developed or developing world, and the duty of a state to provide conditions to enable people to live a decent life and to improve their livelihoods for themselves and their families.
People must also be provided with opportunities to play an active role in their society at all levels, including national level, through transparent and accountable institutions. That should lead to a virtuous circle in which social development leads to, as well as results from, economic development.
Part of my Department's role will be capacity building. We shall be pragmatic and not dogmatic in our approach. We shall not say, "Public sector bad, private sector good," or vice versa. We recognise that context and circumstances matter. With many services, it matters less whether they are provided by the state or the private sector than that the state retains responsibility for ensuring that the service is provided, and, where necessary, regulated.
On that basis, we support and welcome the recently published world development report of the World bank, which advocates the development of the sort of state that I have described to achieve the development that the world needs. We shall therefore often give support—we are doing so now—to Governments who wish to reduce in size a bloated public sector, but at the same time we shall support also the build-up of the state's capacity to supply essential services effectively and efficiently, and the development of its capacity to regulate the private sector.

123
Above all, I want to work in partnership with Governments who share our commitment to poverty elimination. Our role should be to support, complement and enlarge the capacity of developing countries to meet the needs of their people. Ideally, our partnership will be based on an open and agreed agenda, involving Government and civil society as well as other donors.
Where poor people are suffering from a Government who offend human rights and are not interested in poverty elimination, such partnerships will obviously be impossible. In those countries, we shall show our solidarity by supporting non-governmental organisations that can deliver direct to the poor and oppressed. Our preference, however, will always be to work with states, for only they can deliver universals such as primary education for all, better health care for all, and clean water and sanitation for all.
I hope that this work will help to create the conditions that will increase private investment in the poorest countries, but it is clear—everyone must be clear about this—that, whatever the private investment flows, the poorest developing countries will depend for some time to come on substantial resource transfers to create the capacity to generate sustainable development.
It is very regrettable that the resources that the international community is making available to support the process that I have outlined are declining. We know the price tag of poverty elimination and how we can contribute, because the human development report gives us the figures. That is why I am pleased to reaffirm this afternoon the Government's commitment to the 0.7 per cent. of gross national product target and to reverse the decline in the aid budget, which has fallen shamefully, from 0.51 per cent. of GNP and rising, when Labour left office in 1979, to just over half—0.27 per cent. of GNP.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Minister has praised the public-private sector mixture of provision. Is the right hon. Lady aware of the United Nations target of 1 per cent. of transfer of wealth from the developed to the developing countries? Is she aware also that the United Kingdom is at the top of that league, not at 1 per cent. but at 1.38 per cent. in the last year for which there are figures? That is surely a much more effective measure of our achievement in creating development in the world than merely relying on the public sector.
Clare Short: Clearly, increases in investment flows to developing countries are welcome and to be encouraged by everyone. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows it, but the overwhelming bulk of investment flows come from the richest 12 of the developing countries, and that the poorest 50 countries receive none of them. That is why investment flows are not an alternative to development assistance. We need development assistance to create in the poorest countries the sort of development and economic arrangement that will give them the capacity to attract private investment flows. It is not one or the other, but both.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will the right hon. Lady set a date for achieving her target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP?
Clare Short: In Yorkshire, they call that brass neck. Could we hear some shame and humility from the hon. Gentleman about the record of the Government he supported? I am coming to our plans.
124
I am reviewing all expenditure in my Department. I want to be certain that all our spending contributes towards a sharply focused poverty eradication agenda. I shall redirect any spending that does not contribute towards our key objective of promoting sustainable development.
I shall then be in a strong position to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for additional resources at the end of next year. I believe that I shall be able to demonstrate to him that we can make a measurable difference with those funds. First, however, I have to do the redirection job, because a lot of what we are spending now is not going directly into poverty eradication. We want to make sure that every farthing is better spent.
The review process that I have described will include a careful look at how the energies and talents of the private sector can best be utilised to help us deliver our objectives. We shall consider ways in which investment might be encouraged. I have already made it clear that we are reviewing the aid and trade provision, and aid tying.
We must also be clear that development assistance is only part of the way in which we can help to tackle poverty. To have a real impact, there must be greater coherence between our aid, trade, investment and agricultural policies. That coherence must start at a national level and then be developed in the European Union and other international forums, where decisions are taken every day about issues that directly affect the lives of billions of poor people—issues such as market access, environmental targets and rules governing direct foreign investment.
Ms Diane Abbott: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern in the Caribbean about bananas, and the recent adverse decision of the World Trade Organisation. Will she assure the House that the Government will do everything possible to secure an equitable outcome on bananas, which are so important for the economies of many Caribbean countries?
Clare Short: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. She will know that the World Trade Organisation's ruling was disappointing, but not as bad as it might have been. We are now reviewing the situation, to apply for a waiver so that the Caribbean has a long enough period to make sustainable arrangements.
My proposal, which I have started to discuss with some representatives of the Caribbean banana industry, is that they might go for the niche market of organic bananas. The small farmers of the Caribbean are in competition with vast banana plantations that use masses of pesticides. The big banana-importing countries such as Sweden and Germany are very much in favour of healthy, pesticide-free bananas. There are other developments to be taken into account, but that might be a market and part of the answer for the Caribbean. Some people are prepared to pay a higher price for a better quality of banana.
We are seized of the importance of my hon. Friend's argument, and will do everything in our power to help. We are bound by history and duty to ensure that the Caribbean does not end up in a devastating situation. I shall be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that later, but I must get on now.

125
There must be coherence between all aspects of policy. It is no good relying on development assistance and then adopting trade policies that cause impoverishment across the world. For example, massive subsidies to European farmers have increased the world supply of food, lowering the prices that agricultural exporters from developing countries can receive on the global market. Development assistance is then needed to help poor farmers to diversify out of crops in which they might have had a comparative advantage.
That is crazy economics. My Department, which has been created to help ensure that all our policies towards developing countries take us in the same direction, is adding its voice to the pressure building up for reform of the common agricultural policy. We are studying in detail the impact of the current regime on developing countries. We shall identify the reforms that will benefit them as well as our consumers and taxpayers. We shall need allies to ensure that the necessary reforms are carried through.
It follows from what I said earlier that we want to see a particular emphasis in all our development work on human development.
Mr. Cash rose—
Clare Short: I will give way in a few minutes. I must get on, because time is pressing and many hon. Members want to speak.
We want an emphasis on human development, and that is why we announced in Denver at the G7 summit—or G8 summit, I am not sure which; at the G7 plus one summit—both that all our future support for the special programme of assistance for Africa would be untied, and that we would increase by 50 per cent. over the next three years our commitment of bilateral aid to basic education, basic health care and the provision of safe drinking water in Africa.
Mr. Cash: The right hon. Lady so far has not mentioned debt relief. She may remember that, in the previous Parliament, I tabled an early-day motion, which attracted about 300 signatures—including hers, I think—relating to the question of debt relief. Nor has she yet mentioned the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. Is she aware that the World bank does not regard debt relief as a poverty issue? Does she have any comment on that, and will she press the World bank to regard debt relief as a poverty issue of fundamental importance to the future of developing countries?
Clare Short: I have talked about the importance of debt relief and the HIPC initiative on many occasions in the House. The hon. Gentleman will know that Britain under our Government and the previous Government—the very forward position on debt relief that was taken is one of the few things for which I credit the previous Government—has of course cancelled its own debts in regard to the poorest countries and set a good record. We are doing all in our power to mobilise international opinion to get much faster progress. We believe that that is essential.
I agree that debt relief is linked to poverty eradication. We do not just cancel debt for any old dictatorship that is oppressing its poor. It has to be part of a process of reform that will benefit the needy and the poor. They are the ones who suffer the consequences of debt. The reason for cancellation is to benefit the poor.
126
I do not think that the hon. Member for Stone is fair when he says that the World bank does not understand the matter. I have had two meetings with the president of the World bank since we formed our Government. It is signing up to the DAC poverty eradication targets and we are talking about how they can be entrenched in the World bank system of management to ensure that the World bank is part of the mobilising of international political opinion to achieve our objective. I must get on: I am conscious of the time. I do not intend to take many more interventions. So many hon. Members want to speak.
As well as strengthening partnerships with and within developing countries, we want to engage more actively not only with other bilateral donors but with the international organisations through which half our development programme is channelled—about 40 per cent. is channelled through the European Union and another 15 per cent. through the World bank and other UN agencies. Indeed, for many countries, our principal contribution will be by way of the support that we provide in that way. Obviously, we cannot have a bilateral programme in every country.
I hope that the benefits of such partnerships will be felt by all developing countries, not just those in which we have a substantial programme. We need to create optimistic models of development, so that people living in countries whose Governments lack a commitment to poverty eradication can point to their neighbours and demand similar progress at home.
I want to conclude by referring to one further type of poverty which blights the whole world, and which we must also work to eliminate. It might even be the key to unlocking all the others.
It is a poverty of the imagination, which will not recognise that poverty elimination is achievable, affordable and in all our interests. It is both right and in our self-interest to create a stable and secure world in which economic, political, trading and cultural links flourish, and in which all sections of the population in all parts of the world will have a role to play. We need to develop a new spirit of optimism, and we need to keep rekindling that optimism by demonstrating measurable progress year by year as we move towards the elimination of poverty.
For our country, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I apologise, because I think that I have been calling you Madam Speaker—I want to help to create a new form of patriotism. Out of our complex history—all the bad and good of it, and the role it leaves us with on the international stage—I want us to do all we can to mobilise the political will for poverty elimination. The tide is turning in the right way. We have a chance of a reformed and more effective UN, a better World bank, a Lomé renegotiation that embraces the DAC targets of the partnership approach, and a revitalised Commonwealth. If Britain takes on the role of mobilising the political will to achieve those aims, then could not the people of Britain be proud of their country?
I believe that the objectives I have outlined will be shared by the House and by the vast majority of our constituents. They made it clear at the election that they wanted to see an end to growing inequality in this country and an increase in social justice. That lies at the heart of our national agenda, and we are also determined to see it lie at the heart of our international agenda.

127
We shall set out our plans in detail in our White Paper, which we plan to publish in the autumn. I see this debate as a key element in the consultative process and I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members.
4.29 pm
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I wish to thank the Secretary of State for International Development and the business managers for arranging this debate so early in the parliamentary Session. It addresses subjects of enormous interest to us all, as the attendance in the House today bears witness. The debate is an opportunity for the Opposition to reaffirm our commitment to overseas development and to those countries and their people in the Commonwealth and beyond who need and receive assistance. I shall touch on the areas of continuity and agreement with the Secretary of State and also the potentially contentious subjects for the Government's review.
The Government have already accepted many of the targets set by their predecessors. Perhaps the most important is the commitment for Britain to work with our overseas partners to halve the number of people living in absolute poverty by 2015. That is an ambitious target, but one that we believe to be achievable and we expect that the Government will live up to the determination that we expressed. It remains our aim that the poorest countries should have more trade, better government and less debt, as those are the keys which will unlock the doors to escape poverty and achieve prosperity.
We want the Government to continue projects that promote sound political and economic policies, provide improved education, health and family planning services, and encourage sustainable economic development. Throughout this Parliament, we shall seek to ensure that the measures taken by the Department of International Development serve those purposes as they should. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) highlighted the subject of population and received a positive response from the Secretary of State. As one of the founder secretaries of the all-party group on population, reproductive health and development—which has received immense support from Madam Speaker, who is no longer in the Chair—I shall take a particular interest in that subject.
A fundamental expenditure review of the Overseas Development Administration, as it then was, was carried out as recently as 1994. The Labour Government's policy of setting up reviews to review reviews seems to have struck again and we should like to know which of the four aims that were set out in 1994 is to be questioned by the Secretary of State. Does she question the promotion of sound political and economic policies, stronger health and education services, sustainable development or co-operation with our international partners? We wait to learn which of those objectives the Government question.
As one of the wealthier nations—untroubled, mercifully, by famine, war or natural disasters—we are in a position to assist countries that are less fortunate. Action to alleviate the immediate suffering caused by war in, for example, the former Yugoslavia, or drought in southern parts of Africa, is both humane and essential. It enable
128
countries to recover from their misfortunes faster than they might otherwise do. There will always be a major mission for the British aid programme.
On behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to the many voluntary organisations that work so hard to help developing countries. The programmes run by Oxfam, Save the Children, Actionaid and the Red Cross are but a few examples of the work done by the non-governmental organisations.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many of our non-governmental organisations involved in aid to other countries have found that the British public tend to be more generous with appeals for disasters but less generous when it comes to appeals for development aid? That being the case, what does the right hon. Gentleman think that we should do about it?
Mr. Goodlad: That is a valid point. When a natural disaster is seen on television screens, it moves people to dig into their pockets and they will give money to the appropriate agencies, perhaps for the short term to help out with a particular disaster. The Government must take account of that tendency when they consider their long-term planning. Governments have done so in the past, and the present Government will probably do so in the future.
It is our experience that such agencies can operate more flexibly than Government institutions. They are especially effective in running small local projects, maintaining contact with local people and having detailed first-hand understanding of their needs. They are also especially effective where political problems make official developmental assistance difficult. That is relevant to the hon. Lady's point.
I hope that the Government review will confirm the essential place of voluntary organisations in the delivery of Britain's overseas assistance. The volunteering spirit of the British is one of our major assets, and I hope that the review will foster volunteering, rather than replacing it with a culture of apathy or dependency.
Many people today volunteer to help domestic charities. Others go overseas to work in schools, hospitals and villages on rural projects. Voluntary Service Overseas, for example, provides almost 2,000 volunteers for almost 60 countries. We wish it every success and all possible support in meeting its target of raising £600,000 by 1998 to fund more volunteers in India.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Should my right hon. Friend not declare an interest? Is he not a returned VSO volunteer himself?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): That was a long time ago.
Mr. Goodlad: Both my hon. Friend and the Minister are right. I was a volunteer, and it was a long time ago. The hon. Gentleman at the back of the Government side of the Chamber—[interruption.]—yes, the one in the green jacket, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—is also a returned volunteer. If I am not mistaken, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and

129
Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is also a VSO council member, as I also was briefly. I hope that the Secretary of State will give VSO all the support that it deserves.
What representations has the Secretary of State made to the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the strategic defence review? The connection is perhaps not obvious, but the British armed forces are professional and of worldwide renown, and they have contributed to disaster relief operations all over the world.
In Bosnia, for example, British armed forces, with the Overseas Development Administration, took part in more than 3,500 British convoys delivering 185,000 tonnes of supplies. British convoys represented a quarter of all those undertaken by the United Nations. The United Nations humanitarian operations helped to keep 2.5 million people alive through four consecutive winters.
Starting in 1992, throughout the hostilities and to date, until May, we have spent £383 million in Bosnia, initially on humanitarian assistance but later, with Multi-national Division (South West)—that is, with our soldiers—on projects to restart normal life in the sector, such as rebuilding schools, clinics and community centres and re-establishing water, gas and electricity links. That has been one of the most successful and welcome projects, and it is being adapted to establish income-generating projects that will help to start or restart small enterprises.
I hope that the Government will continue to work with the World bank on the major power projects pioneered in Croatian, Serbian and Muslim areas with Japanese and Canadian partners, and on the long-term Bosnian power project.
Elsewhere, the Royal Navy's West Indies guard ship, HMS Liverpool, is helping the islanders of the dependent territory of Montserrat. We have already spent about £25 million in Montserrat on emergencies, balance of payments assistance and development projects. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister will join me in congratulating our armed forces.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I warmly endorse my right hon. Friend's words about the forces in Bosnia. Will he also emphasise that not only the ships on standard patrol, such as the West Indies guard ship and the Armilla patrol, but Royal Navy ships on duty throughout the world are almost always the first on the spot? They represent an extraordinarily powerful arm of Britain's policy overseas.
Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a matter in which we can all take great pride, and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister can give the House an assurance that neither the regiments in Bosnia nor the West Indies guard ship will be disbanded as part of the Treasury-driven review.
It is essential that the quality of our development assistance be maintained. Our development assistance was praised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, as "highly concessional", with a
"well-organised bilateral programme based on substantial national expertise."
The most recent statistics show that the United Kingdom is the sixth largest aid donor by volume, with £2.041 billion spent in 1996; 0.27 per cent. of gross
130
national product was spent in 1996, putting the United Kingdom above the average of the aid-giving countries, which is 0.25 per cent.
Mr. MacShane: While the right hon. Gentleman is surveying the record, will he take the opportunity to apologise to the House and to the British and Malaysian people for the scandal of the Pergau dam, which did immense damage to Britain's good name and shamed and exposed certain Conservative Ministers' squalid links with private gain? Will he say sorry?
Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman would find few echoes for his remarks in Malaysia or indeed anywhere else. The House went into the Pergau matter at great length; the then Government have everything to be proud of and he has everything to be ashamed of.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pointed out, the Secretary of State will know that the previous Government attached great significance to the United Nations target of a net transfer of 1 per cent. of gross national product, in public and private funds, to developing countries. At the time of the general election, the United Kingdom exceeded the target by more than a third. As a nation, we were the second largest provider of money for development in the world as a proportion of national income, although the Secretary of State made a perfectly legitimate stricture on the matter.
I am pleased that the figures released after the general election showed that the total net financial flows to developing countries rose in 1996 to more than $300 billion for the first time. That achievement was brought about largely by the private sector, which increased its share by an exceptional $80 billion to a total of $234 billion. Those huge flows of money to developing countries were generated by real people in real businesses, with real cash money, sometimes in partnership with Government and sometimes not.
The world is going through major changes. We do not always show that we are aware of that, but we should be. Economies are growing throughout the globe, bringing in their wake new challenges as well as great prosperity. That is much to be welcomed. Much has been written about the Asian miracle, in particular, but the same could be said for some of the Latin American countries whose record rates of growth, often defying international recessions, have made the rest of the world envious and their people more prosperous.
The reasons for those countries' success lie in their sound macro-economic policies, commitment to private enterprise and market economics, and emphasis on education and self-improvement. Those qualities are not the preserve of any one region or nation; they are qualities to which every Government, including Her Majesty's Government, should aspire.
Mr. Blunt: That is the core of the issue; it is where things could go wrong unless the review reverses the Secretary of State's complete fixation with the eradication of poverty. That is the perfectly laudable outcome of what should be the policy, but if that is the only policy, and the Government ignore issues such as political and economic development, sustainable development, health and education policies and co-operation with our international partners—the four keys of the previous Government's

131
policy for the Overseas Development Administration—and treat international development in isolation, they will fail in their objective, which is shared by hon. Members of all parties.
Mr. Goodlad: Some of the considerations that my hon. Friend rehearses are essential to the objective that he is right in saying that we all share—the eradication of poverty. I share his concern that the Secretary of State and her party may commit themselves to a series of policies which could endanger that objective. Political correctness could endanger the eradication of poverty.
Clare Short: I find this very irritating. I have just made a speech which made it absolutely clear that human development for the poorest needs to be complemented by the organisation of a state that allows sustainable economic development to take place and creates the conditions to attract inward investment. Clearly the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) cannot hear, or his brain is unable to receive information, because he simply stands up and traduces the analysis that I have just presented to the House.
These matters are too serious for cheap political games. Conservative Members should not allege that we are adopting a particular position when that is simply not the case.
Mr. Goodlad: I hope that the right hon. Lady will contain her irritation and recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and other hon. Members may make remarks which are not on all fours with her views but which are not intended to be anything other than positive contributions to the debate.
Mrs. Fyfe: The intervention from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) leads to a more concrete discussion. In Burma, for example, the currently illegal Government are developing industry speedily but at great cost to the population who, far from being removed from poverty, are having their lives destroyed. Will the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) clarify his views on such issues as his Back-Bench colleagues are somewhat confused?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I should say that a great many Members wish to take part in the debate. Interventions have been frequent and long. Can they now be brief and to the point, please?
Mr. Goodlad: I have strong views on Burma which I have rehearsed before. However, it is a matter for the Government, rather than for me.
The Secretary of State and her party are suspected—wrongly, I hope—of committing themselves to a series of policies which could endanger the eradication of poverty by putting political correctness before international interests. I hope that the Secretary of State will not resent my saying that, as the purpose of this debate is to air concerns.
The Secretary of State may be about to announce her intention to end the practice of tying aid. The multilateral untying of aid—like multilateral nuclear disarmament—
132
may be a highly desirable goal, but unilateral action is not a clever policy in either area. Unusually, the unilateral change was hinted at without a review—a rarity under the present Government. The Secretary of State will be aware that a review of UK tied aid policy has been carried out. I hope that she will forgive me if I remind the House of its conclusions, which were that
"their is no strong case for making major changes"
in the present policy and:
"Current practice is consistent with the desire for effective and efficient aid; and helps to maintain popular support for the aid programme."
The tying rules were revised in 1994 to provide sufficient latitude for the purchase of non-UK goods and services to minimise the risk of unnecessary excess costs. I hope that we shall not see a victory for dogma over good sense in this area.
We would like to know what rules will be put in place and how much the supervision will cost to make sure that untied aid is not misspent. We want to know also what is to stop a country placing an order in Teheran rather than Telford. What is the Government's view on Governments who offer services with large subsidies attached?
Last week, the issue was raised of the Secretary of State's understanding of the difference between free trade and fair trade. She will know that "fair trade" can sometimes, although not always, be a cover for protectionism—a policy which harms consumers and protects inefficient producers. It is our belief that aggressive, politically correct and almost imperialist social legislation is not the best way to reduce poverty and increase the standard of living in developing countries. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) finds that funny. If he thinks that he has come to this place for a programme of light entertainment, he is wrong. He should return to his constituents and tell them that both he and they have made a massive mistake.
Free trade is crucial to the economic prospects of the poorest countries, as it brings in approximately three times more money than aid alone. It boosts countries' economies and provides a spur to economic growth. The Secretary of State should not confuse support for free trade with a belief in some sort of social Darwinism. We want Britain to continue to work with the International Labour Organisation and with developing countries to tackle problems such as child labour. It is essential that a framework of law should be in place to meet the internationally agreed standards. It is also important that we have the ability and the will to enforce the laws. It is unrealistic to argue that the minimums abroad have to match those of the most industrially advanced countries, or that competition on grounds of price is somehow morally repugnant.
The ethical consumer movement can provide an excuse for people to use the market to make their own choices and to inform others of them. I hope that the Secretary of State will not allow dangerous political correctness and protectionist sentiment to form an unholy alliance to stifle trade and opportunities. I tabled a written question to the Secretary of State, to which I received a reply today. The reply came before it could appear in Hansard, so I think that the House should be informed of it. The question was:
"To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her Department's policy on a target date for global tree trade".

133
The reply from the parliamentary assistant was:
"I am writing to inform you that the following question tabled to the Secretary of State for International Development for written answer on the 01 July has been transferred to the Department for International Development."
I do not blame the right hon. Lady personally, but I hope that she will sort these matters out and take advantage of the debate to confirm that it remains the Government's aim of achieving free trade by 2020.
Sustainable development is compatible with free markets. It was the closed markets of communism which produced the industrial devastation in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Britain's support for countries in transition should be maintained through our successful bilateral programme, the know-how fund, and various European Union programmes such as PHARE, Poland and Hungary Assistance for Economic Restructuring, and TACIS, Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will confirm that that is the case.
I also hope that the Secretary of State will not rule out all support for programmes which help poor areas in better-off countries, as using national measures of wealth to determine whether a state is worthy of support can lead to anomalies in aid policy.
Sustainable development is the concept that the previous Government championed and is now under review. Recent meetings in Denver and New York have confirmed that there is international support for sustainable development. Like the Secretary of State, I am disappointed that the United States has not joined EU countries in setting a target for curbing carbon dioxide emissions. I am pleased that the Prime Minister admitted at his press conference in Denver on 22 June that in this area Britain is somewhat ahead of the field—an admission that the Conservatives put Britain ahead. We will press the Government to ensure that Britain is kept ahead.
The creation of a vigorous private sector within developing countries is an essential part of achieving self-sustaining growth. It brings not only new resources, but new skills and technologies. Britain's expertise in this area is widely recognised, particularly British small business expertise—promoted by successive Conservative Governments—which has been exported to developing countries under the auspices of the small enterprise fund. Joint initiatives between non-governmental organisations and business associations have led to successful projects in places such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, and I hope that the Secretary of State will support similar projects in the future.
Much direct investment in business in the developing world is provided by the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Operating within business criteria as Britain's official development finance institution, the corporation invests in more than 50 developing countries by making long-term loans available at competitive rates. Commitments now exceed £1.5 billion, and I hope that the Government will continue to support the CDC and its operations.
The Commonwealth is an institution with a unique role in discussing international development. It is a unique forum for debate and it performs a valuable function by promoting common interests and values which are essential to the success of nations, parliamentary
134
government, the rule of law and the promotion of trade. The Commonwealth contains many of the success stories of the east and countries with more troubles in Africa. It assists in the development of poorer countries through its development institute. The exports of British business to Commonwealth countries have risen in each of the past three years. There is an exceptionally large British presence in many of those markets.
The Commonwealth has exercised its role in building democracy by organising at least 15 election observer missions in 12 countries. The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Harare in 1991 pledged that the Commonwealth would concentrate with renewed vigour on promoting fundamental rights, including equal rights for all citizens. Work in that area has been taken forward by the Commonwealth Secretariat through a programme of education and training, exchange of information and the creation and strengthening of the relevant national institutions.
I very much hope that the Government will carry on the work that we had in hand to reinforce the Harare declaration with action at the Edinburgh summit later this year. I hope that the Secretary of State accepts the agenda set by the previous Government that the Commonwealth should focus on international issues such as trade, investment and development when it meets.
Mention was made of debt servicing. The debt burden in the poorest countries has been tackled, thanks to British action. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was responsible for the ground-breaking Trinidad terms, under which agreements were secured to provide for reductions in debt, first of 33 per cent., then 50 per cent., and then 63 per cent. We are pleased that the initiative to reduce the debt burdens of heavily indebted poor countries was launched successfully at the International Monetary Fund and World bank annual meetings in September last year. All major creditors confirmed that they would play their part, and the World bank's contribution was made through a new trust fund. I hope that the Secretary of State's review will reinforce the commitment to cut debt.
I am concerned about the commitment to review the criteria used by the IMF, which were questioned in a letter written by the Secretary of State dated 18 October, in which she said:
"The Labour party is very concerned at the criteria used by the IMF, in particular, to evaluate a country's progress through structural development. These criteria are over-focused on macro-economic indicators of a particular kind—tariff reduction, public expenditure cuts, progress with privatisation—and take little or no account of social or human indicators,"
In due course, I hope that she will say what the new criteria are and how she expects economic progress without the use of economic criteria. I hope that she accepts that economic growth is the best way out of poverty. We must get answers to those questions in the review.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not ignore important macro-economic criteria, such as rates of inflation. She will recall her statement in July 1996 that it seemed a "funny thing" to set up inflation as the
"biggest evil of our time".
She added:
"I don't fully understood how inflation became such a beast that it had to be attacked at such incredible cost across the world".

135
Tackling poverty requires a combination of measures, and they are reflected in the long-term approach to overseas assistance. The review should confirm the policy of the previous Government in placing great emphasis on breaking the link between poverty and political instability. The United Kingdom's development assistance programme should place a high priority on the promotion of good government. That means sound economic policies based on free enterprise and private property, political systems based on open and accountable government with free and fair elections, efficient public administration, and respect for human rights.
The Secretary of State enunciated some vague generalizations, mercifully bereft of new ideas, and recited the great achievements of the past few years—
Clare Short: The right hon. Gentleman is reading that out.
Mr. Goodlad: It is original; I could not have written it before listening to the right hon. Lady.
I believe that the Secretary of State shares with all hon. Members a strong belief, in many cases passionately held, in the objectives that we seek to serve and have sought to serve. I hope that the review to which this debate is the precursor will take serious note of the views of hon. Members of this House on the means to achieve those ends.
5.4 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome this debate. It is no exaggeration, even after the last speech, to say that it will be followed with enormous interest and hope around the world, especially in the poorest nations of Africa and elsewhere. Let us hope that we do not disappoint them.
The fact that room has been found in the crowded parliamentary timetable for a debate on international development, the day after the transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong and the day before the Government's first Budget, sends the strongest signal about the new emphasis and urgency given to these vital issues, in stark and refreshing contrast to the often Marie Antoinette-like indifference of the previous Administration. Special credit for that must go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I am delighted to have the opportunity once again to congratulate her warmly on her well-deserved appointment, and to commend her for the vigour, enthusiasm, dedication and skill that she has brought to her office. My right hon. Friend mentioned Dame Judith Hart, one of her illustrious predecessors. I believe that she has the capacity to exceed even Dame Judith's great achievements.
A series of recent international gatherings—the G8 summit in Denver, the Earth summit at the United Nations in New York, and the meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in the Zimbabwean capital Harare, to name but three—has served forcefully to remind us that, unless the problems of the world's poorest people are taken into account in all our deliberations, we cannot talk about peace and security in the world. Unless answers are found on the pressing issues of sustainable development, the future of our planet may be at stake.
136
As President Robert Mugabe told the United Nations, the international community seems to remember the existence of Africa only when disaster strikes the continent. It was therefore welcome news when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the Denver summit that we intend to increase our bilateral aid commitments to African countries for basic education, health care and the provision of safe drinking water by 50 per cent. compared with the figures for the past three years. Investment in both human development and infrastructure is essential if Africa is to be able to eradicate poverty and realise its full potential.
There are some hopeful signs. Despite what much of the media would generally have us believe, the news from Africa is by no means all bad. Many countries have undertaken serious reforms of their economies and systems of government. The absolute decline in incomes has been halted, and the 1996 average rate of growth for the continent was 5 per cent. Within that figure can be found some particularly impressive success stories.
Ethiopia, almost universally written off as a basket case a decade ago, has a growth rate of 12 per cent. Thanks to its encouragement of grass-roots democracy and the land reforms that have unleashed the creativity and enthusiasm of the peasantry, Ethiopia achieved self-sufficiency in food last year—a truly remarkable feat.
Uganda, another byword for tragedy not so long ago, had a growth rate of nearly 10 per cent. and has become a regional magnet for investment. This year, we acknowledge the fact that 25 years ago many of my constituents were expelled from Uganda by its hated regime. Many of them have re-formed links with their country of origin and will go back this year. Many regard with great pleasure the fact that Uganda has made such important strides.
South Africa has some of the highest rates of economic growth outside the east African region.
Despite such magnificent efforts, the difficulties and challenges remain extremely formidable. Sub-Saharan Africa has a population of 600 million, which will double by 2025. Forty per cent. of people live on less than $1 a day and the infant mortality rate is one in 10. Alongside conflicts, natural disasters and severe environmental difficulties, the AIDS pandemic continues to claim the lives of hundreds of thousands and to threaten millions more.
Against that background, Africa's share of world trade, output and investment—already disproportionately low—has declined steadily in the past two decades. All this has contributed to unsustainable levels of debt, a collapse of infrastructure, the revival of traditional conflicts and the eruption of new ones and, in certain instances, even the disintegration and disappearance of civil society and the states themselves.
It is scarcely surprising that even those Governments most committed to reform and self-improvement, such as Ghana, Uganda, Ethiopia and Mozambique, often find their way blocked by challenges that they find insurmountable. Therefore, the international community has a clear duty to make greater efforts to help Africa as it tries to solve its own problems.
Perhaps the greatest factor impeding Africa's efforts to shake off the legacy of poverty and underdevelopment is its chronic debt problem. I therefore welcome and applaud the Government's initiative to write off the bilateral aid

137
debts of 17 of the poorest most indebted African countries. Equally welcome is the World bank and the International Monetary Fund's implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries—HIPC—initiative, which is likely to benefit up to 14 African countries, with Uganda as the first beneficiary.
We all know, however, that such measures on their own still fall far short of what is required. Debt servicing makes a mockery of our present aid programme. For every pound that Britain gives in aid, we receive back 47p in debt services. Not only is that morally reprehensible, but it clearly and directly undermines the effectiveness of our efforts in poverty reduction and development aid and is, therefore, economic nonsense.
The HIPC initiative only scratches at the surface of the problem. The level at which debts are considered sustainable has been set too high, and many countries are not scheduled to receive any relief until well into the next century. For many of their people, the stark fact is that that will come too late. Added to that, political problems are leading to further delays. Uganda is first in the queue, yet its relief package has already fallen a year behind schedule.
Debt relief, as I have already implied, is literally a matter of life and death. The United Nations Children's Fund has estimated that just £49 million of debt relief for Uganda could save the lives of 398,000 children under the age of five and 13,000 women who would have died in childbirth, in addition to improving primary education for 2 million more children.
Similarly, in Mozambique, debt servicing accounts for one third of public expenditure, while education gets just 7.9 per cent. and health a pitiful 3.3 per cent. The country's Ministry of Planning and Finance predicts that, even after HIPC relief comes on stream, debt service payments due in the next millennium will be three times their average in the early 1990s.
Mozambique is now a multi-party democracy. Its commitment to economic reform is such that a recent Financial Times supplement remarked that it would surely leave even Lady Thatcher breathless—quite an achievement. Among the reasons why Mozambique remains one of the poorest countries on earth, with one of the lowest life expectancies, are the sacrifices that it made to support the struggle against racist minority rule in the former Rhodesia, and the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Its solidarity with the peoples of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Namibia, Tanzania, Botswana and Swaziland was such that Mozambique became the first country to be admitted to the Commonwealth that was never colonised by Britain. Can it be right for a country that has already suffered so much to endure such a burden? There can be no moral, political or economic justification for that.
Likewise, what useful purpose or moral argument can there be for continuing to demand that the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo pay the price for the extraordinary and bizarre behaviour of Mobutu and his henchmen? The Government have expressed a welcome wish to work constructively with the new Administration of Laurent Kabila in Kinshasa. There could be no better way to start than by giving bilateral debt relief and supporting such initiatives at the multilateral level. There is no doubt that such an approach will be welcomed throughout the continent.
138
South Africa's deputy Foreign Minister, Aziz Pahad, last week called for a co-ordinated international effort to help rebuild the Congo's shattered economy, which would have to start by working out ways to deal with the crippling debt burden of £9 billion inherited from Mobutu. He stressed that that must be an African-led initiative, and I believe that one of the most useful things that we could do is to encourage the increasing efforts of the African countries and peoples to resolve their problems themselves.
Such an approach has shown its worth in efforts to resolve conflicts in the Great Lakes region, to restore democracy and halt the slide to war in Burundi, and to end conflicts and restore democracy in Sierra Leone and Liberia. The continued progress of the Southern Africa Development Community and the more recent revival of institutionalised economic co-operation between Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania are the sort of positive examples that we need to support and help to build on.
It is entirely right that we should focus our efforts in debt relief and development aid on those countries that have made the greatest efforts to reform their economies and democratise their forms of government, on countries that fight corruption and do not contribute to instability among their neighbours and in the wider region. However, it is time to reject the tired and discredited dogma that economic liberalisation on its own represents some sort of panacea for the poorest countries of the world. The new Government elected by the British people in their millions on 1 May bring to the task of international development fresh thinking that asserts that liberalisation on its own is not enough. The state still has a key role to play in ensuring provision of basic health and education, in terms of physical infrastructure and in establishing a fair and transparent framework of legislation and regulation.
It is interesting to note that, as with the Government's policies at home, our thinking on international development is paralleled by a welcome change of heart on the part of key players, some of whom have by no means always shared our views and perspectives. For example, last week the World bank's chief economist, Joseph Stiglitz, declared:
"Markets and governments are complementary. The state is essential for putting in place the appropriate institutional foundations for markets."
According to the World bank's new report "The State in a Changing World", most African countries will need to raise real public wages, increase spending on social services and
"undertake vast investment in personnel management, retraining and accountability."
The bank's president, James Wolfensohn, noted:
"Without an effective state, sustainable development, both economic and social, is impossible."
According to Wolfensohn, the state must be a "partner, catalyst and facilitator" of economic development, setting rules to allow markets to function, playing by the rules itself, acting predictably and preventing corruption.
The World bank report identifies what it considers as five crucial functions that Governments, as opposed to markets or the private sector, must provide—a legal foundation, an effective macro-economic policy environment, investment in basic social services and infrastructure, a comprehensive safety net for vulnerable members of society and basic environmental protection.

139
For those who remember the dogmas, prescriptions and impositions of the 1980s in particular, those are welcome and refreshing words. They provide the basis for a great new consensus which can really work to eliminate extreme poverty and so make the world a safer and more sustainable home for future generations.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brings to her office an awareness of the tragic circumstances that led to some of her forebears having to leave Ireland and subsequently make their home in Birmingham. In his recent message at the famine commemoration event in the Irish Republic, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recalled and regretted how the Government of the day in London 150 years ago failed a section of their people, with tragic consequences, by allowing political and economic dogma to take precedence over human want and need.
Today, we live in an even more interdependent world; we must not leave to future generations the burden of having to say that we in this House failed the most needy people in the world for any reason of prejudice, indifference, dogmatism or wilful neglect. That, above all, is what the Government's White Paper must address; I firmly hope that it will.
5.20 pm
Sir Raymond Whitney: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was right to point to the welcome improvements in a number of African states. He was also right to mention the importance of relieving debt interest. However, he might have recognised the important start made in that respect by the previous Conservative Government. I differ with him over his suggestion that the present Government came to office on 1 May with a new set of policies. As far as the country can tell, most of the Government's policies are a pale imitation of Conservative policies. Labour offered only two policies: a minimum wage, which will cost jobs, and a windfall tax, which will do great harm. There is little sign of any other new policies.
I have had the privilege over 10 years of my working life to be involved with development in one form or another on the Indian sub-continent and in east Africa. Throughout that time, I have been struck by the danger of introducing woolly thinking into the subject. That was one of a number of points on which I agreed with the Secretary of State. She said that what were needed were not just soft hearts but hard heads, and I agree. However, as she continued her speech, hard-headedness seemed to disappear.
As we enter yet another review with this White Paper, the new Department should ask the following question: after more than 40 years of massive development effort and after countless billions of dollars or pounds have been spent, why do these enormous problems and challenges remain? The problems seem greater now than they did in previous decades. That is not necessarily because they are greater in real terms; it is because we are more aware of them. The communications revolution means that the problems appear on our television sets virtually every night and there is, rightly, deep awareness of them. The public will to meet that challenge is entirely justified and, I am sure, shared by parties throughout the House and the country.
140
I also agree with the Secretary of State that it is possible to eradicate poverty; it is technically achievable in terms of increasing the production of agriculture, food and other goods so that other countries attain the sort of standard of living that we in this country are fortunate to enjoy. It is possible to eradicate poverty if we introduce the right policies, but that is where we have to make a judgment. The White Paper must be clear and as we move forward on, I hope, a bipartisan basis, we should learn the lessons of the past 40 years, which have not been an unmitigated success. However, in the past few years, some progress has been made in Africa.
No amount of aid or sacrifice by the developed countries will work unless conditions are right in the developing and recipient countries. There are two major challenges or obstacles to be overcome. The first challenge is what we might call civil strife. If there is civil war or tribal fighting of the sort that we have seen in central Africa over the past two or three years, nothing can be achieved, whatever the world community does. All we are doing is putting a finger in the dyke; no progress can be made towards eliminating poverty.
I am not suggesting that I have the answer, but the international community must work out what it can do if one country or a group of countries seems intent on tearing itself to bits. To what limits can the rest of the international community go? What action can we take through the United Nations, the European Union or any other international group? How far can we go in peace-keeping terms? We all know the terrible challenges involved. How many of us are ready to tell our constituents that their sons must enter the armed forces and defend the status quo in Rwanda, the new Congo or wherever? We also face the challenge of what happens when we leave. Will we be sucked into what is known in the United States as the Vietnam situation? Those challenges present an examination test to which the international community has not yet found the answers. I do not have the answers either. Those problems constitute a crucial element in the challenge that the international community must tackle if it is to solve world poverty.
I believe that we have learnt lessons and can make progress in our efforts to overcome the second challenge or danger. I shall sum up that danger in a word that may give offence to some Labour Members: it is socialism—state interference. We saw that happening for at least a quarter of a century—
Mr. MacShane: Where?
Sir Raymond Whitney: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman. I can give the example of Tanzania. I am referring to the 25 years between 1960 and 1985—the hon. Gentleman was not in the House at that time, but I was, towards the end of that period. Dame Judith Haft, to whom much reference has been made in the debate and to whom I pay tribute, was totally committed to the cause. If ever there was an example of a soft heart taking precedence over a hard head, it was in the form of that admirable woman, Dame Judith Hart.
I am giving the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) his answer and I hope that he is listening. Tanzania is a perfect example. We kept hearing about Uncle Julius—President Nyerere—who was

141
President for about 25 years, during which time there was what he called Ujamaa socialism, which was a total disaster. With a few, freak statistical exceptions, no country in the world has had more aid than Tanzania, which has nothing to show for it in terms of its people making progress towards escaping poverty.
There has been a change in the past five years. We have got away from the one-party state, from centralisation and from the socialism of Tanzania into a multi-party state led by President Mkapa. He follows the precepts and recipes of the International Monetary Fund for which he worked.
Mr. Soames: Julius Nyerere followed mad policies which did terrible harm in Africa and awful corruption flowed from his Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate turned largely because of the efforts of my colleagues at the Overseas Development Administration to link aid to good government? Does he agree that—far from there having been no overseas aid until the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) became Secretary of State for International Development—the whole debate and the thrust of our aid programme had already dramatically changed for the better and led to profound changes in those countries?
Sir Raymond Whitney: I am most happy to agree with my hon. Friend—we must not let Labour Members get away with pretending that international development began on 1 May. We were, quite rightly, the sixth largest donor in the world and, as most of those familiar with aid programmes on the ground recognise, the British aid programme is one of the best administered of the lot. I would add, en passant—if I am allowed to use a little French in this Chamber—that one of the other lessons I learned from personal experience is the extreme value of well-administered non-governmental aid. I emphasise the term "well-administered", because there are some badly administered programmes. I reckon that £1 spent by a good agency is worth £5 spent by a multinational operation and I have seen many examples to justify that belief.
Let me return to the point in my speech where the hon. Member for Rotherham gave me the chance to offer him the salutary example, which I hope he will consider carefully, of Tanzania and how the dangers of a socialist approach destroyed any hope of using aid productively and effectively. That point was again underlined by the world development report issued by the World bank, to which the Secretary of State referred. If the seed of development is to flourish, the soil has to be fertile, which means that the approach of the recipient Government has to be sensible, non-dogmatic and pragmatic. It is the lack of those qualities that will reduce the economic success that the Labour Government have inherited from their predecessors.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman gets totally carried away with his eulogy to free market economics, will he pause for a second and recognise that the free market economies of Latin America that he admires so much have created the most incredible gap between rich and poor—which is precisely what they are designed to do—and that the gap is getting greater and the rate of environmental destruction in those
142
economies is getting far worse? Does he not recognise that in equality there is also an opportunity for sustainability?
Sir Raymond Whitney: I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider the standards of living in even the poorest countries of Latin America and compare them with the impact of socialist policies in Africa. I would be the first to agree that there is a challenge in some Latin American countries, but he should recognise that the trickle-down effect actually exists—although I realise that that is anathema to his basic political philosophy. Would that the economic position in Africa were remotely comparable to that in Latin America, which is the second fastest-growing economic area in the world. If I were asked who would be better off in 10 years' time, someone who lives in Zaire or Rwanda or someone who lives in a favela outside Rio, I know where I would put my money.
I gather that today, for the second time of asking, the world has been blessed with a speech by the Secretary of State. I regret that, although we could all agree with many of her remarks, the speech verged on the platitudinous. We were waiting for the big event—to be told what was new. We know about tackling and trying to eliminate poverty, but we wanted to know what the Government were going to do about it. We were told that they would have a review—No. 27 or 28 in the calendar of this brave new Labour Government.
The Government have set an aid target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product, so the obvious question is whether there is a target date by which we are to achieve it. We have been told that the answer is no—the review will be completed at the end of next year and then a date will be found. Whether we are currently spending 0.28 per cent. or 0.27 per cent. of GNP on aid and whether we want to shift the focus of that expenditure marginally one way or another is not important; if the Government truly accept a target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, what is wrong with announcing a timetable now? Might not that reticence be connected with the fact that the Budget is delivered tomorrow and therefore nothing can be said today? I may be wrong, but I doubt whether anything will be said tomorrow about expenditure increasing in the aid budget. That was a significant gap in a very long speech by the Secretary of State, who told us nothing new. Nevertheless, I look forward to the right hon. Lady's continued occupancy of the post of Secretary of State. There is no doubt where her heart lies—the question is, how hard is her head?
5.35 pm
Mr. Bernie Grant: I was not sure whether the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) was attacking socialism or attacking Africa. If socialism, I tell him that there are many countries that have failed as a result of some policies that were called socialism—countries such as the Soviet Union, which receives aid, and other eastern European countries—but I did not hear him mention any of them. I am led to the conclusion that he is really concerned, not about socialism, but about Africa, and I wonder what the reason is for that.
I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for allowing the debate to happen. I understand that there has not been a debate on foreign aid for an extremely long

143
time. The fact that an issue that has not been debated in the Chamber for many decades is now at the top of the agenda shows the Government's commitment to the subject.
The debate gives hon. Members and the Government the opportunity to discuss and to amend the practice of the old Overseas Development Administration, whose representatives were concerned with huge projects and with acting like old colonialists in relation to them. I am concerned by the way in which the ODA has relegated the Foreign Office to the status of a poor cousin, receiving handouts to run small projects with which the ODA cannot be bothered. That attitude of the ODA causes great resentment among embassy and high commission staff in a number of countries.
British overseas aid in the past has been difficult for countries in the south to access. Strings have been attached—for example, consultants, arms sales and so on—and I was pleased when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said today that tied aid will be discontinued. Also, in some instances, the ODA has given capital funding but not running costs, thereby causing projects to fall into disrepair and abandonment.
In the past, aid has been used—[Interruption] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find it very difficult to speak over the noise from my hon. Friends—I hope that they will either be quiet or listen. In the past, aid has been used to try to alter the political regime in some countries. For example, in Malawi, the regime was threatened with the withdrawal of aid unless the Government changed. Aid given by Britain often ties the recipient countries to buying British goods and services and, in some cases, countries end up owing Britain more than they received in aid.
The role of the British Council was undermined by the Conservative Government through competitive tendering, cuts and a general lack of belief in the organisation. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure us that the British Council, which is respected by every country that I have ever visited, will be fully funded, and that its proper status will be restored?
Sonic people in this country believe that aid should not be given to other countries. Constituents of mine, especially young people, say to me, "We have problems in our own country. Our infrastructure is bad, and there is high unemployment, but we are giving aid to other countries." I think that such arguments can be laid to rest by the concept of mutual benefit. Aid that is given to a country in the southern hemisphere can benefit both donor and recipient. When a project is agreed on in such a country, working-class youths and adults in our inner cities—as well as working-class youths and adults in the recipient country—should be able to benefit front training on that project. In the past, aid has largely benefited only big firms such as Wimpey, Tarmac and Costain and their middle-class professional staff.
When I was in the South African Free State recently, someone asked me whether I would lobby the British Government on his behalf to help support a jewellery factory that he wanted to set up in the Welkom area, where the gold mines are. I said that I would be happy to assist, but would that person assist me as well? Many youths in Tottenham could benefit from learning the jewellery trade. I said, "I will do a deal. I will fight for
144
you to secure funds from the British Government, if you agree to take some of our young people so that they can be trained in jewellery cutting and polishing and we can establish a jewellery industry in Tottenham." That is what I mean by mutual benefit. The person agreed to my suggestion, and in due course I approached the Ministers on his behalf.
Projects could be much smaller, and geared towards women and young girls. I am not 100 per cent. critical of the last Government and the Overseas Development Administration. Last year, having been approached by a group of people who wanted to set up information technology training for fledgling black businesses in South Africa, I took them to see Lady Chalker. She agreed to establish a pilot project with the group, and the ODA provided about £200,000 for an initial two-year period. When I went to see the project in action last month, I noted that that £200,000 had funded an enormous operation. The group had persuaded Anglo American to provide them with a brand-new but redundant training centre with 28 bedrooms and a swimming pool, the like of which I had never seen in Britain—and they had acquired it for one rand.
The group has moved on since then. Dell Computers has given it a number of computers; Microsoft has provided the software. When I visited the project, the group had already begun training people from the townships of Brondreld, Thabong and Reebigstadt, and the initial period of training was coming to an end. Four of the 15 people involved already had jobs, and the South African business sector was so impressed with the project that companies such as Anglo American and ICL decided to send their staff to be trained at the centre. The project has been a tremendous success, and excellent value for money. I look forward to discussing with Ministers the possibility of our supporting such a venture.
I was particularly pleased by the fact that computer experts from my constituency went to set up the training in Welkom. If anyone wants further details about the project, I shall be more than happy to supply them.
Let me make a plea for aid projects to be multiracial at all staff levels. Currently, most members of staff are white, which gives those in recipient countries the impression that Britain is a totally white country. Non-governmental organisations and firms that receive contracts as a result of aid should be required to prove that they are equal opportunity employers, and that their personnel who leave this country are multi racial.
I hope that the Ministers will consider helping countries in the south to gain access to aid from Britain and the European Union. It is notoriously difficult for such countries to get hold of EU funds. Rules and regulations are so stringent that gaining access to the funds requires a batch of accountants, financial workers and lawyers whom those countries simply do not have. The situation is ludicrous in many southern countries: millions of pounds have been allocated to them, but lie in the vaults of Britain and Europe while people in those countries starve.
There are two ways in which the problem could be tackled. First, specific aid packages could be geared towards the recruitment and retention of professionals in countries in the south. I believe that many young graduates of African origin would be prepared to go to African and Caribbean countries to work on such

145
programmes, and I know that the same applies to people of Asian and other origins. It should be noted that nearly all Voluntary Service Overseas personnel are white. I support VSO organisations, but every one that I have seen on my travels has been white. The Government should encourage active recruitment of black and Asian VSO personnel. Secondly, the requirements adhered to so assiduously by officials in the EU and Britain need to be reviewed in consultation with the Governments of countries in the south, so that mutually acceptable procedures can be implemented.
That brings me to my next point. A brain drain is taking place in Africa and parts of the Caribbean. People are being drawn to Europe and America, areas which are acting as huge vacuum cleaners, sucking the best brains out of the southern countries and thereby preventing those countries from benefiting from their qualifications. People who have been given scholarships by their Governments come to this country, gain qualifications and then, invariably, gain further qualifications. They then stay in this country rather than returning home.
Mr. Bowen Wells: People like the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Grant: No, not people like me. I did not come here on any scholarship. I am pleased to say.
The Government want such people to stay here because they require their skills, and can get them cheaply. In fact, the Government often do not pay anything, because the southern Governments must pay for the scholarships. The situation is so bad in some countries, such as Guyana, that Governments cannot even collect their own tax revenues because of the lack of qualified staff. The late Dr. Cheddi Jagan, the ex-President of Guyana, said consistently that southern countries should be compensated—not aided—for the brain drain.
It is obvious that the best way to eliminate starvation and poverty in southern countries is to get rid of the debt burdens that they bear. The Paris Club, which is the international forum for determining debt relief, operates on the basis of consensus, which ensures that relief proceeds at the pace of the slowest. The Government should take unilateral action to wipe out the debt of the poorest countries. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that that has already started.
The Government are committed to the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, the HIPC initiative, of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. While the initiative is welcome, its associated structural adjustment programmes are stringent and long winded and make it difficult for many of the poorest countries to benefit. To date, no country has obtained debt relief from the HIPC initiative. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said, Uganda has undergone 11 years of IMF programmes and is still unable to get relief this year. Next year, Uganda will be required to pay back more than $200 million in interest and the debt relief will amount to only $20 million. That is after 11 years of the structural adjustment programmes. Even the HIPC initiative will be of little help to Uganda next year. I should like to see the Government taking the lead in scrapping the debt owed to Britain as a matter of urgency.
Fair trade is an important element in helping the poorest countries to reduce starvation and poverty. I hope that the Government will look closely at how trade links with
146
Britain and the European Union could be assisted. I am particularly concerned that the EU is currently consulting widely on its green paper on Lomé 5 on which negotiations are due to begin in 1998. The agreement will affect the various agricultural protocols such as those on bananas and sugar. In view of the World Trade Organisation's requirements, I hope that the Minister will find time to debate the Lomé 5 agreement, which is of such importance to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
5.52 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I had hoped to welcome the Secretary of State to her new job. I hope that that will be recorded. I welcome the White Paper and the opportunity to debate it. I understand from my colleagues that there has not been a White Paper on international development for 20 years. That is quite extraordinary.
The political will to build on past successes in combating world poverty has been eroded over the past two decades, and that was illustrated in the speech by the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad). My overwhelming impression was that his speech was a eulogy on the armed forces that are needed to sort out civil wars. In most cases, such wars are the result of failure to provide aid and relieve poverty. The second part of his speech was devoted to trade. It was significant that, in his list of developing countries' needs, he mentioned first, trade, secondly, better government and thirdly, the relief of poverty. My hon. Friends would call that a Freudian slip, but it illustrates the Conservative mentality.
The aid budget is always an easy target, especially when Governments are required to cut costs or to reduce or maintain tax levels. I urge the Government not to stick to their ridiculous boxing in of tax and spending, which we have heard about. No doubt, all will be revealed tomorrow. I hope that we get some good news. We Liberal Democrats are constantly accused of taking the moral high ground. The Government have a huge majority and I urge them to seize the moral option, not only because it is right but because we can afford to do that.
The gap between the richest and poorest countries is wider than ever. Civil wars are increasing, thousands of people are being displaced by conflict and environmental degradation and old and new diseases are threatening public health. The prime purpose of aid is to reduce poverty, and we often fail to acknowledge that aid has brought Britain short-term benefits in goods, services and research. The longer-term approach to aid should be to regard it as investment.
As a doctor, I would opt for promoting preventive health care because prevention makes economic sense. It means less suffering by the patient, and that is also true of nations. Extending aid today will mean less emergency aid tomorrow. Today's recipients of aid are tomorrow's markets. We can all win.
In my short time as Liberal Democrat spokesman for international development, I have come to regard the portfolio, as I know does the Minister, as the most important one. There is no end to the responsibility. It encompasses the environment and the economy and ranges from health to defence issues and all are relevant to international development. I urge the Government in their White Paper to take in aspects of all their policies in other Departments to see how they affect developing countries.

147
International development to tackle world poverty requires a multi-faceted approach, and it is my job to give the House a brief view of Liberal Democrat policy. We must set a timetable to achieve the United Nations aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP in 10 years. I feel ashamed of this country's record. For example, Norway provides 1.05 per cent. of its GNP in aid. While that country's percentage has risen, ours fell under the Conservative Government. Dare I suggest that a timetable for debt relief in the poorest countries and a programme for cancelling debt which has been called for by Jubilee 2000 are surely better ways to celebrate the millennium than building a dome at Greenwich?
Liberal Democrats endorse the Foreign Secretary's fine statement that human rights will be central to the Government's foreign policy. However, we want to see practical measures such as suspending United Kingdom aid programmes in countries where human rights are not being respected such as Indonesia and East Timor. The White Paper must also assess the nature of international trade and how global markets often operate against the interests of developing countries.
We must reform the international trading system. For instance, multinational commercial-style agriculture and industry expanding at its present rate will cause 36 per cent. of the world's arable land to be lost by 2025. Is that sustainable development? Millions of children under the age of 12 work in sweatshops in ever-expanding cities to satisfy the world demand for cheap consumer goods. Is that sustainable? How can we let it continue? My major concern, however, is the targeting of aid, especially to women and children who are illiterate, sick and dying because their countries are so busy paying off debt and encouraging unsustainable development that there is no money left to give their people basic education and health care.
Some hon. Members may already know that I have spent most of the past 15 years working as a woman's health doctor in Southall, Middlesex, where the majority of residents are from the immigrant Asian community. They have access to the best health care and education and they make the most of it, but my patients used to tell me how lucky they were and that the majority of their countrywomen left behind in developing countries faced a different future—a nightmare.
About 600,000 women a year die while giving birth. Many of them are teenagers. I say to hon. Members: imagine if they were their children or grandchildren. The suffering of those women is no less because they are in the third world. Of those 600,000 women, 140,000 bleed to death. [Interruption.] I do not think that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) can stand the statistics. About 75,000 women die from the results of self-inflicted abortions. They do not want unlimited pregnancies; they want to decide for themselves how many children they have. In many cases, they have no access to birth control, so illegal, self-inflicted abortion is the only answer.
About 75,000 women die from convulsions due to eclampsia, which is a complication of pregnancy, and 100,000 from blood poisoning. About 40,000 go into obstructed labour, which goes on for days and days and there are enough women in the Chamber, thank goodness,
148
to know what obstructed labour might feel like. The baby is already dead and the women go on until they eventually die themselves. Help is not available. The ones who die might be regarded as the lucky ones. The women who live face a life of terrible ill health and of rejection, often by their families and communities because they simply cannot support someone who is unproductive within the village or family.
Those women and their children must be helped. They must have access at least to basic health and maternity care. I accept that it is a tremendous task, but I cannot accept us turning a blind eye to such suffering. As other hon. Members have mentioned, help must be linked with basic education. That must be a high priority. Studies have shown that the education of girls, in particular, is one of the best investments available to developing countries.
I welcome the fact that the Government have announced that we are going to rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, but I am sad that the money has to come out of existing budgets and that no new money is to be found yet. Education can increase incomes, free women from subjection and lead to better child health and nutrition. Ultimately, it can lead to a more prosperous society.
Mr. Foulkes: I welcome what the hon. Lady says about UNESCO. The Secretary of State for International Development was in Paris this morning hoisting the Union Jack over the UNESCO building, while the Union Jack was being taken down on the other side of the world. I also reassure the hon. Lady that the moneys to pay our subscription to UNESCO will not affect our bilateral programmes to any country, but will come out of the contingency fund.
Dr. Tonge: I am delighted to hear that because, in a reply several weeks ago, the Minister told me that the money would come out of the reserve and did not explain that new money was being found. I am not sure even now that that is new money and we look forward to new money for overseas aid.
If poorer countries are using their meagre gross domestic product to pay off debt, to erode their land and to destroy their environment, they gain nothing and we gain nothing in the long term. Every day that developed nations delay the relief of unpayable debt, opportunities for education, health care and sustainable development are lost. Let us in this country, who have been given every opportunity to change things for the better, lead the way through the new Government. The Government are leading the way on land mines and they should be proud of that. Let us also lead the way on overseas aid.
6.4 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the debate and the opportunity for a discussion before the publication of a major Government paper on international development issues. I particularly welcome the fact that the Government have changed the Department's name from Overseas Development Administration to the Department of International Development. It is a far more appropriate title. It recognises a sense of sustainability and interdependency in the world, rather than one of a paternalistic disbursement of funds to the needy poor.
I also welcome what goes with that change: that the Government's foreign policy statement on human rights is a central part of British foreign policy. It is about time

149
that that was a central factor in our foreign policy because human rights abuses throughout the world are getting worse. Many of those abuses are a product of poverty, of the gap between the rich and the poor, of the sale of arms and of the arms race. Those are all factors that must be borne in mind.
The end of the century provides us with an opportunity at least for some degree of hope. When we were having such debates 10 or 15 years ago, the world was gripped by what could only be called the Thatcher-Reagan axis of a never-ending arms race, an ever-growing gap between rich and poor and the brutal imposition of free market economics on the poorest economies and people throughout the world. That brutality cost the lives of millions of people, as did the United States arms race and rearmament programmes. However, things have moved on a bit since then and I hope that we now recognise that this planet cannot survive unless we find an environmentally sustainable form of development and eradicate the gap between the richest and poorest nations, and between the richest and poorest people in both poor and rich nations. This country has much to learn and much to contribute to the debate. Until last year, Britain had the fastest growing gap between the rich and poor of any industrial nation and we exported that belief to many poor nations.
On Friday, a BBC "Newsnight" report on the New York environment summit suggested that there was some difference between environmental groups, aid lobbies and world anti-poverty organisations. There is no difference between the two because the world's problems—including global warming, pollution and desertification—impact on each other. If people chop down forests on the coast of west Africa, it affects the rainfall further in the interior. If people chop down forests anywhere, it increases run-off and it reduces water retention and the atmosphere's ability to gain more oxygen. We suffer as a result.
Throughout the world, it is the poorest people who suffer the impact of pollution. The smog clouds in third-world capital cities are over the poorest neighbourhoods. It is the rich who can afford to move to the hills in the suburbs and who think that they can get away with it. The poor suffer from low life expectancy and appalling housing and health because of the environment in which they live. We have to look to develop a world in which we protect the biodiversity that exists, in which we encourage an environmentally sustainable policy by all countries and in which agricultural and industrial systems do not continually warm the planet and create problems. We have to look to sustainable agriculture as well, which brings me back to the point about the economic models that are imposed on people.
African agriculture is very efficient and productive. It is not efficient and productive if development destroys what was an indigenous form of agriculture and instead imposes a plantation system of agriculture based on machinery, pesticides and exports, which reduces the life support systems for the local populations.
Some years ago I was in Honduras, an extremely poor country in central America, talking to a family who lived outside the cash economy. They lived, essentially, in a hut beside the road and grew a bit of corn. If they did well, they sold a bit and could buy a few cooking utensils. If they did not do well, they starved. Behind them was a huge, barbed wire fence protecting the fattest beef cattle
150
in the world which were using the land—land that that family should have—to feed the burger bars of the United States.
The international development of a plantation or ranching system of agriculture while allowing a minority of the population to live in the most abject poverty possible was presented as a model of development. We can and must do much better than that. The gobbledegook of market economics that says that all private sector investment in the third world, and all investment in such an agricultural system, is automatically good is totally wrong. It is totally fallacious. If we believe in sustainability, we must encourage an agricultural system and biodiversity that sustain the environment and the local population. It seems wrong to encourage the development of such an agricultural system when the poorest people in those countries continue to starve as a result.
The Secretary of State's objectives for 2015 of halving world poverty; universal primary education in all countries; a two-thirds reduction in infant mortality; and global sustainability are achievable. They are, in some ways, quite modest. They suggest that there will still be quite a lot of people living in abject poverty, that there will be an awful lot of children and young people dying prematurely, and, indeed, that there will be many adults who will be lucky to live past 45. We must be able to achieve my right hon. Friend's objectives, but to do so will require a considerable effort by an awful lot of politicians around the world to make the case and to be prepared to promote a trade and aid system.
My concern is that so much of the economic development that is happening in the world at the moment is presented as rapid economic growth, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney), who often speaks with great verve about the development of Latin American economies. He will find that there is indeed very fast growth in many Latin American economies, but behind that growth lies two factors. There is the most unbelievable degradation of the environment by multinational corporations that could not give a fig for the pollution that they pour into the rivers, for the fish that they destroy, the forests that they chop down or the life styles that they destroy.
There is also mile after mile of shanty towns outside the major cities, with children working in unbelievably appalling conditions. As soon as anyone pokes their head above the parapet to try to form a trade union to protect workers' conditions or tries to form a social rights campaign to obtain housing, health or education, they come up—like a hammer against an anvil—against the economic model that that country is following. They are told, "Pay your debt, cut your public expenditure. Promote exports. Don't worry about sustainability." Those people, because they have stood up against those regimes, then become political refugees who seek a haven in western Europe and north America. We can and must do better than that. There is a danger that the economic models that are being pushed on the poorest countries of the world are in effect almost a recolonisation of the countries that fought for their independence some years ago.
Of course we should achieve the aid target. It is a disgrace that we ever went below it. We can and must do much better than that. We must also look at the issues of trade and fairness that go with it. Some countries have traditionally depended on a single product for their main export earnings. My hon. Friend the Member for

151
Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned bananas from the Windward Islands; others mentioned cocoa from west Africa and other places. But however much those countries are able to increase their productivity, they end up getting less money for their products because they do not control the prices that they are paid in the first place. They produce more to sell more to get less to pay a debt, the interest rate of which is fixed elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) spoke about the debt crisis.
One can see how countries got deeply into debt. They did not control the petroleum prices. They did not control the interest rates that they paid on their loans. They did not and cannot control the prices that they are paid for tea, coffee or anything else. Those prices are fixed miles away, often only a couple of miles from this Chamber. We must ensure that the World Trade Organisation looks to sustainable and fairer trade and ensure that decent prices are paid for the primary products of the poorest countries in the world.
We have to ensure that the International Labour Organisation's very minimal and basic conditions are applied throughout the world. The biggest abusers of workers' rights around the world are often the small contractors that work for multinational corporations that are based elsewhere. The children who assemble training shoes in third-world countries work for the brand names that are on sale in the high street. However much those brand names might try to wash their hands of it, they are guilty of what is going on.
My final point—this debate is clearly part of a continuum—is that we have to take these issues extremely seriously. We want to live in a world that is harmonious, but it will not be harmonious if the gap between the rich and poor widens. It will not be harmonious if civil wars are promoted as a result of that gap. It will not be harmonious if we base much of our economic activity on the sale of arms to elites to control the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world. We have to look to democracy in the way in which multinational corporations operate. It is regrettable that, a year after the Rio summit on the environment, the United Nations closed down its office for multinational corporations. We have to reform the way in which the World bank operates and the way in which the International Monetary Fund operates.
In its 50th anniversary, perhaps we should look to greater democracy and transparency in the United Nations. We want this planet to be a place that all of us can inhabit, where all of us can achieve the best for ourselves in our lives, but we cannot do that if we allow some of our fellow citizens of the globe to die in childbirth and allow some people to reach 30 or 40 while a minority in the richest countries can live to 80 or 90 and have a reasonable existence. We must ensure that we share the wealth of the world and the technology that brought about that wealth.
6.17 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I start by welcoming in her absence—I should he grateful if the Minister would pass on my warmest welcome— the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) in her capacity as Secretary of State for International Development.
152
I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that the change in name is fortuitous and welcome. It more carefully, more sensibly and more coherently portrays that which a country such as ours seeks to do in this regard overseas.
I also pay warm tribute to my right hon. Friend Baroness Chalker. All of us who know Lynda Chalker know what an incredibly dedicated and remarkable job she did at the Overseas Development Administration. She was held—literally around the world—with immense affection, regard and esteem. On many occasions, I have been told that she has a profound understanding of the needs of many developing countries and a determination to do what she can to help them.
I very much hope that Labour Members will not forget the very admirable work that Lynda Chalker did. I hope also that they will not forget her predecessor—the 28th and last Governor of Hong Kong, who was himself an immensely distinguished Minister for Overseas Development.
I should also like to do something that the Secretary of State for International Development, to her shame, did not do today—pay a warm tribute to all those who work for the ODA. Many ODA staff and subcontractors work in the most hostile, difficult and inhospitable conditions, and they have many remarkable achievements to their credit. In the plethora of political correctness that we hear everywhere about overseas aid, we underestimate the extraordinary respect that Britain commands in the developing world.
Clearly Labour Members believe that overseas and international aid have been invented since 1 May 1997. I believe that it is incumbent on the House not to forget that, before 1 May, we operated one of the most successful aid programmes in the world.
Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House which Government and Prime Minister first created a Ministry of Overseas Development, which Government degraded it so that it was simply an adjunct of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and which Government returned it to the Cabinet?
Mr. Soames: I can quite easily answer the last question, but I have no idea about the first two questions.
As I said, we had a very good aid programme. Although many hon. Members might have wished that we had had more to spend on overseas development, as a proportion of national income 'at 1.38 per cent. of gross domestic product' Britain is nevertheless the second largest provider of development money. I believe also that the action that was taken to make that money go further by promoting work with non-governmental organisations set a very valuable precedent, on which I am quite sure that the Secretary of State for International Development will build. Opposition Members will be watching with interest as the new plans unfold. I am particularly interested to discover how much money the Chancellor will give to overseas development.
At heart, the previous Government believed that the quality of aid was what really mattered. I am quite sure that that belief will hold true with the current Government, regardless of whether they spend more money. The important factor is that the quality of aid given should be extremely good.

153
In the course of the very happy time that I spent at the Ministry of Defence, I had the opportunity to see many ODA projects around the world. I should like, however, to dwell on the projects that I saw in Bosnia, because an important question is where the defence review will leave our overseas aid programme and many of the assets deployed in its support.
The scale of the work that was undertaken in Bosnia was truly remarkable. Hon. Members do not know enough about those programmes, although—if he attempts to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) may have something to say about the extraordinary success of the British aid programme in Bosnia and the desire of almost every other country involved there to learn how our aid projects were undertaken.
Many of those projects were undertaken by the British Army—particularly the Royal Engineers—and supported by the Royal Air Force and by the Royal Navy. The projects had the benefit of the skills and experience of the ODA, matched with the tremendous technical skill of people such as the Royal Engineers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) said, the forces restored electricity and gas supplies and built health centres. I visited a health centre in a place where, for generations, people had had no form of medical assistance.
The services also repaired and rebuilt schools and gave people considerable comfort and a stake in the community—which, after all, is what promoting peace is all about. Their effort was one of the most excellent uses of our aid programme that I have ever seen and enabled us make a real contribution to restoring normality to a shattered and broken country, thereby enabling people to begin to pick up the pieces.
My experience of the ODA in Bosnia showed the services' exceptional ability to help in delivering aid. There are endless examples of that ability, as the Under-Secretary of State for International Development knows very well. He knows also that we should build on that ability. I suggest that the ODA should provide and that the services should make provision for a permanent ODA representative, to assist in contingency planning at the permanent joint headquarters, at Northwood.
I had an entire series of meetings with ODA officials and Ministers to try to ensure that we had perfect co-ordination. However, much of the planning for operations short of total war should involve the ODA, because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) said—much of the necessary work involves clearing up after military operations and delivering aid to communities gravely affected by those operations. It is important that the ODA's expertise should be factored in early in planning operations.
I ask the Minister to consider the question whether there should be—if not a permanent ODA representative at the PJHQ—a highly placed official who could be allocated to the PJHQ at any time to assist in on-going contingency planning.
Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute also to HMS Liverpool, which is providing tremendous
154
assistance to Montserrat? It is another example of what he is talking about: aid delivered efficiently with the help of the armed forces.
Mr. Soames: I am very glad to endorse my hon. Friend's comments. In events of the past few days, HMS Liverpool, which is currently the West Indies guard ship, has played a notable role. Later in my speech I propose to say a word or two about the West Indies guard ship, which has long played a notable role in similar operations. It is an extremely important asset.
The Minister should know also—although the services will not thank me for saying it, because they want their people to do things other than to work in the aid programme—that, within all three services, there is an increasing reservoir of extraordinary expertise and skill in aid delivery. I urge the Minister and the Minister for the Armed Forces—who has at his command, particularly within his private office, a considerable reservoir of expertise—to make the most of those resources to ensure effective and efficient aid delivery to those who most need it.
The know-how fund, which was established by the previous Government, has been an incredible success and one of the most successful new developments in international aid of the past few years. The fund has supported the transition to a market economy in central and eastern Europe by providing British skills and encouraging British investment, and a Conservative Government spent £230 million on it. In the re-ordering that the Secretary of State for International Development said that she will undertake, I very much hope that there will be no diminution of that very important programme in central and eastern Europe. It is not only contributing to stability in countries making a very difficult and tricky transition but greatly enhancing Britain's reputation.
The Secretary of State for International Development has returned to the Chamber. I warmly congratulate her on her new position, to which she is bringing much enthusiasm and drive. I understand how excited she is at getting the job, because I felt exactly the same about my job in government. Enthusiasm can carry before it a great deal of obstruction.
I ask the right hon. Lady to consider establishing a know-how fund for the Palestinians. Her Department has a good record already in helping them. I think that about £80 million has been given to the Palestinians to help them in a tricky period. The right hon. Lady, who knows about the middle east, will be aware that the peace process is beginning to run into the sand. Too many people feel that no longer do they have any stake in the community and have nothing that is worth hanging on to for the future.
The way in which the know-how fund has operated is so special and unique to the United Kingdom that it would command the support of many of the Gulf states, which I am sure would share the funding of it if we made available our expertise. I ask the right hon. Lady carefully to consider whether there should be a reordering of the fund. We might look for other sources of money to support such a programme. Given our expertise in these matters, the other moneys would be most welcome.
I shall say a few words about the defence review. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) mentioned the West Indies guard ship.

155
The Secretary of State's right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence are undertaking a fundamental defence review, which will be put many such assets under great pressure. The right hon. Lady needs to fight with all the considerable force of character and will at her disposal to ensure that we retain the guard ship along with the Armilla patrol, both of which for tiny cost carry weight and substance and the ability to project British power, which is an important object in itself, along with the ability to assist in disasters.
The right hon. Lady will know that for many months there have been evacuation and emergency plans for Montserrat. The West Indies guard ship was the key to that operation, as was all the liaison that takes place throughout the Caribbean between the countries that have ships in the area, to ensure that we cover one another and can help. The guard ship and that liaison are a vital arm to our foreign and aid policies. I urge the right hon. Lady to understand that both these assets, and many others, are of great service to the state and are under great pressure.
In my view, the Secretary of State for Defence does not understand what the Treasury will do to the defence budget. The right hon. Lady will understand that the Treasury is one of the arms of government that is entirely resistant to reason and logic. In my humble experience of the Treasury, it is my considered belief that it works for a foreign power—probably for the Russians. I urge the right hon. Lady to get her retaliation in early and to build a substantial case for those assets that help her Department to deliver the overseas aid programme in such a distinguished way.
Mr. Grant: I agree 100 per cent. with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the West Indies guard ship. It does a tremendous job in terms of evacuation and in patrolling for drugs and everything else. Has the hon. Gentleman, as I did, landed on the guard ship in the middle of the Atlantic by helicopter? It was one of the most exciting things that I have done in my life.
Mr. Soames: Over the past few years I have landed on many ships, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is, indeed, an outstanding and exciting thing to do. It is—I do not know exactly what the word is—a nut-tightening experience of the first order, especially if one is landed-in by wire. However, I was so dedicated to my job in the Ministry of Defence that I felt for me to go to the West Indies would probably be a trip too far. I passed on that particular one.
I conclude by taking up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury about Voluntary Service Overseas. I think that the Secretary of State is in a unique position, with her tremendous enthusiasm for her job, to encourage and enthuse more young people to take part in the aid programme. I have no doubt that they could, if they were permitted to do so, make a hugely greater and more important contribution than they can now because of the meanness or parsimony of our financial masters.
I urge the right hon. Lady to ascertain whether she can secure more money for the VSO and for other like organisations and generally to encourage the young to see what they can do to help developing countries, where they will be made most welcome.
156
My right hon. Friend Lady Chalker instituted a fundamental expenditure review within her Department in 1994. It is difficult to see what rabbits the right hon. Lady will be able to produce from her hat. All of us will live in hope but, I must say, without much optimism.
6.35 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer: I am grateful for the chance to make my maiden speech on the subject that is before the House. Many right hon. and hon. Members will remember my predecessor, Sir James Lester, as a prominent supporter of overseas aid, and I am pleased and proud to be continuing this Broxtowe tradition. It is sometimes said to be an unpopular cause, but that never seemed to worry Sir James, just as he remains an enthusiastic supporter of the European Union long after it has ceased to be fashionable in the political circles in which he moves.
I remember a debate during the general election campaign when a questioner asked whether he, Sir James, was not worried by the social chapter. He replied that he was not worried at all by the social chapter as it stood. It would have taken only a tiny hint of scepticism to win the questioner's vote, and it would not have made any difference to the prospects for Europe or the national election if he had perjured his soul by that tiny fraction. But he did not, and it was one of those moments that I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members have had, at one time or another, when they had a sneaking suspicion that their opponent might, at a personal level, be a better man or woman than they. Sir James is an upright man, and all of us across the constituency and the political spectrum wish him a very happy retirement.
Broxtowe is a fascinating constituency to represent, not least because it does not exist as a place on the map. It was originally an administrative and recruiting area, and the Men of Broxtowe were a feared armed force in former times. I shall say something later about the women of Broxtowe.
The constituency curves round the western outskirts of Nottingham, including an astonishing variety of environments. Beeston, the home of Boots and the regional centre for Siemens and GPT, is a thriving town, attracting increasing interest from other pharmaceutical companies.
Further west from Nottingham, we find the leafy suburbs of Bramcote Hills, as well as the famous Attenborough nature reserve. Next comes Stapleford, which is distinct from Nottingham and which faces all the challenges and problems of proximity to a major city. I am sure that many hon. Members will be aware of those challenges and problems from knowledge of their own constituencies.
Turning north, there is the idyllic village of Strelley, so fiercely protected by planning regulations that even the trees must apply for permission to spread their leaves. There are then the townlets of Awsworth, Cossall and Trowell, which are directly threatened by opencast mining projects of the type which were debated in the House a few weeks ago. I am sure that we shall be debating those issues again soon. Finally, in the far north, there is the town of Kimberley and the sprawling estates of Greasley, where many of D. H. Lawrence's works were set.
Like all constituencies, Broxtowe strives to develop new export industries, and one of the most successful has been in Labour candidates. My hon. Friend the Member

157
for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who has already impressed the House with her maiden speech, was until the election the deputy leader of Broxtowe council. Ms Jocelyn Pettitt, the candidate who reduced the former Chancellor's majority to a handful, is chair of Broxtowe Labour party. Rumour has it that she was the only Labour candidate to receive a "good luck" telegram from a Conservative association—in Yorkshire, I believe.
During the past 18 months, I spent most of my weekends talking to a total of more than 10,000 people in Broxtowe—not campaigning, but just listening to their concerns. During the election campaign, we offered all voters special interest leaflets on 14 subjects. We were a little surprised that the overseas development leaflet was one of those most in demand. That interest in overseas development in my constituency and many others can be traced back to the everyday concerns of most people.
How do people expect from us in Parliament to affect their lives? The sobering truth is that most people are not all that interested in any of us or in politics. Most people just want to get on with their life. Events in Westminster normally seem remote to them, just as events in Britain probably seem remote to many of the people whose future we are discussing.
The problem is that a sudden decision in the political or business world can lash out at a person's life like a blind monster, oblivious to its power. Those effects can be seen in Britain when a decision to close a factory, build a stretch of road or change the rules for the care of the elderly, which may seem minor and necessary in London, destroys the security that families have built painfully over many years. A change in the terms of international trade can destroy a country's prospects for many years.
People do not expect the Government to intervene massively to transform their lives overnight. If we announced that a giant new steel works—or even a giant dome—were to be built in Broxtowe next week, people would be astonished, and not necessarily all that thrilled. They look to us to provide underlying security—the confidence that they will always have at least a minimum income, a roof over their heads, a tolerable environment, decent health care and decent education for their children.
People expect that not because they are particularly lucky, not because they were born to the right parents, not because they know the right people, and not even because they made the right decisions early in life, but simply as part of the basic package of being British.
People want protection against arbitrary disaster. It is sometimes said that a strong welfare state removes the incentive to take risks. People who are walking a tightrope without a safety net take the fewest risks, and cling most desperately to what they have. Only someone who believes that they will always be sure of the basic essentials will find the courage to change to a new skill or go to a new town to find work. We try to encourage flexibility in Britain and abroad, but we must remember that flexibility is not just a change in the rules, but an attitude of mind rooted in underlying security.
If those facts are true in Britain, how much more are they true in developing countries, where many people never encounter even a fleeting moment of security, and life is a desperate battle from a hazardous birth to an early death. Most people in Britain do not spend much time thinking about such things, but when they hear about conditions in many parts of the third world, a spark of
158
sympathy leaps the geographical and cultural chasm, and they want their Government to do more to make an impact.
Most of us remember the Live Aid events some years ago, which, for a few days, gripped the imagination of the whole of Britain. That memory is lodged in people's consciousness. They do not think about it every day, but they want us to take action.
For the past 18 years, we have spent less and less of our resources on fighting the most extreme forms of human misery on the planet. For the sake of our self-respect, we should reverse that decline and concentrate our aid on countries as disparate as India, Cuba and South Africa, where there is a clear focus on taking people out of poverty.
In recent weeks, the new Government have met a rare wave of euphoria. People who for many years have felt cynical about politics and about the Government have gained a sense of common hope—a sense that democracy can achieve a change for the better. With the policies that we are discussing today, we have a chance to spread a little of that hope to people in places where hope has been no more than a distant rumour. If we neglect that chance, we will forget the ideals that once put us on the road to becoming Members of Parliament.
My contribution comes down to one simple message: in overseas aid, as in other areas, we must not let down the people of Broxtowe, of Britain and overseas who have hesitantly come to believe that the British Government can again be a force for good. For the sake of our country and for the sake of our democracy, we must not let them down.
6.45 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: It is my pleasant and traditional task to congratulate the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on his excellent maiden speech. It could not have come in a more appropriate debate. His predecessor, Sir Jim Lester, was an assiduous attender of debates on overseas aid, and supported many initiatives on the subject in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, on which he sat for many years. He was a strong supporter of overseas development and the aid budget throughout the times when the hon. Gentleman said that the budget was diminishing. I assure him and his constituents that the budget would have diminished a great deal more if it had not been for Sir Jim Lester's advocacy of it.
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for the courteous way in which he referred to our former colleague and for the thought-provoking and thoughtful nature of his maiden speech. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to hearing him as often as the huge Labour majority will permit.
I want first to look for the points of consensus in the debate, before addressing one or two areas in which we might diverge from the thoughts put before us by the new Secretary of State. I welcome the review. I know that we Conservatives make fun of the fact that the Government are conducting so many reviews—as far as we can see, we have government by review at the moment—but the review of the aid budget has not come too soon. We must think through what we are trying to achieve and how to achieve it.

159
The objectives that the Secretary of State set before the House are not in dispute. The Conservatives are as keen as the Secretary of State for abject poverty to be relieved. She was right to point out that we have made huge progress and that our objective should be to make further progress more quickly. The elimination of abject poverty is a wonderful objective.
The poverty that we talk about in overseas development debates is not the same as domestic poverty. The Labour party tells us that domestic poverty grew under the influence of 18 years of Conservative government. It is talking about comparative poverty, for which the right hon. Lady's objectives cannot be achieved. We cannot eliminate comparative poverty. In the sense that she is looking for elimination of abject poverty, I am sure that we can agree on how that has to be done.
Elimination of abject poverty has to be done through basic health care—and population control along with it, as My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said. I urge on the Secretary of State the necessity of population control alongside the issues of women's health and the health of the child—on which huge progress has also been made, some of it under the influence of the United Nations, particularly UNICEF's immunisation programme in Lebanon during the middle of a great war.
I take issue with the Secretary of State on her response to my question. I believe that some international organisations—many of them UN organisations—can do things which we as a single sovereign nation cannot. One of them—apart from the immunisation programme in Lebanon—is the elimination of smallpox throughout the world, which has been achieved.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on Britain rejoining UNESCO. Her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for—I never get this quite right—Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and I fought for us to rejoin UNESCO. Did I get his constituency right?
Mr. Foulkes indicated assent.
Mr. Wells: Good—that is an achievement.
One of the primary reasons for fighting to rejoin UNESCO was the basic primary education objective, to which I am delighted the Secretary of State wants our initial contribution to be devoted.
I am a little cynical about the Secretary of State being able to get the money. She announced the other day that she has managed to get money from the contingency reserve. That is wonderful, and gives my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and me hope that, by fighting the Treasury, she will be able to get more money for the aid budget. I shall make some proposals later about emergency aid and how we fund it.
The issue should cover health, population control, housing, shelter, reliable sources of food, water—and together with that, clean water and sanitation—and at least primary, education. That leads to what we must also do: provide employment for those who survive their youth, in order to enable them to help themselves.
160
The objective of aid must be to enable people in third-world countries to help themselves. This is where I am worried about some of the arguments that have been put before the House. I worry that, in their desire to help, Government Members want, in their rather patronising way, to give the fish but not the fishing rod. I very much hope that I am wrong, because the fishing rod, the capacity to help oneself, leads to a more rapid improvement in health and welfare and to the relief of poverty for which we are all looking than any other method.
We should be giving not cash but investment. Investment in productive, wealth creating businesses and agriculture will provide jobs and improve the ability to raise the necessary money through taxation to pay for health care, housing and education, which I suggest cannot be supplied on any sustainable basis through any conceivable aid programme that we may put forward.
Barriers to trade or protection, which I see that some of the briefing for this debate still urges should be undertaken by non-governmental organisations—briefing from Oxfam, to be precise—will not enrich countries. Trade itself will enrich countries. I was very pleased to hear Government Members saying that we must enable third-world countries to sell to this country—and Europe particularly.
We must take that up fiercely with Europe; Europe must open its market to imports from the third world to enable the third world to earn its own living instead of being dependent on aid. Aid should enable, not create dependency. Some countries are literally dependent on the regular receipt of aid. That is no way in which finally to eliminate poverty. We must enable people to help themselves.
Aid can work only where there is good, sound government—preferably of a democratic kind. Sadly, we can point to countries that have a form of government that is not democratic but provides the stability and capacity for people to have the confidence to invest in their own future. We must help that. Governments can destroy the developmental process.
Although the British aid budget is of outstanding quality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said, it is also very thinly spread. I suggest to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary that we must take some hard decisions. We must concentrate our aid and assistance where it can work best, and not necessarily where it is most needed.
Some countries greatly need aid. We heard of the plight of the people in Iraq in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, but people in Sudan, for example, the Central African Republic and Burma are also desperately poor. We cannot help those people because of the nature of their Governments, who are certainly not democratic. They are tyrannical, and fight wars with each other which result in absolute poverty of the most degrading kind. We would love to help, but, given those conditions, we cannot, and we need to recognise that.
We must say that, sadly, until such Governments are in a position to offer a proper economic framework in which to work in accordance with the world development report—a framework that includes a basic legal framework, effective macro-economic environmental policies, investment in basic social services and infrastructure, a comprehensive safety net for vulnerable

161
members of society, basic environmental protection, and I would add the absence of corruption—we cannot help them.
I am glad to say that, at last, corruption is beginning to be spoken of in international financial circles by people such as the president of the World bank. The Under-Secretary and I were urging the World hank about eight years ago to make certain that money did not go to corrupt Governments, because it would only be disbursed, get into the wrong hands and go back into Swiss bank accounts.
Mr. Soames: How does my hon. Friend envisage the Secretary of State overcoming the very difficult conundrum of distributing aid in the way that he rightly suggests but at the same time retaining enough from what will be a much more limited aid budget than she aspires to or would like for the many post-conflict resolutions such as in Bosnia, where aid was applied not in the conventional sense as it is in Africa but to provide stability and some form of normality, and to enable peace-keeping operations? How does he see that balance being struck, in an inevitably very limited programme?
Mr. Wells: I shall come to the issue of emergency aid and the kind of aid to which my hon. Friend referred in his excellent and very constructive speech. As he hinted, we must find alternative sources for the know-how fund and the kind of emergency aid that we have been offering, which is of huge value and which we can hardly avoid giving. People are in the most appalling conditions—usually war, or tension between warring parties.
Those areas include Bosnia, Iraq, Burma, the central African republics and Sudan, which is in an appalling condition. We need to provide emergency aid for those people, but the Secretary of State must look for alternative sources of finance. The Gulf states should be invited to contribute, and should work with us in Palestine and all over the world. We should head a group of nations that will fund international operations with efficiency and a humanitarian approach, like that exhibited by our armed services and the ODA in Bosnia.
The additional finance cannot come from the taxpayers' pockets in this country. We cannot raise enough, and we should not sacrifice the important investment that we make in eliminating poverty. I regret the way in which emergency aid has taken a bigger percentage of the bilateral budget in the past few years, because that is a distortion of objectives of the aid budget. On the other hand, I do not want to stop providing emergency aid, so we have to find extra money for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid"Sussex has diverted me from my point, which was that we cannot provide aid alone. We must do it with other Governments, and in partnership with the private sector. In fact, the private sector must provide the majority of the money and investment needed. I am proud that we contribute 1.38 per cent. of gross national product when both private and public funds are taken into account.
I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind another danger. We must not enter another colonial era and impose on sovereign states our ideas of what they should do. That would be to repeat the mistakes of colonialism.
For example, some years ago the then Prime Minister of Jamaica, Michael Manley, said that he would introduce compulsory primary education during his five years in
162
office. That never happened. The introduction of compulsory primary education would be the most developmentally important improvement for Jamaica, and I would support a proposal that we stopped all other aid to Jamaica, provided the Jamaicans agreed to spend money on primary education.
However, I would not spend the money on school buildings or books—I would spend it on training teachers to teach. In that way, we could make a huge contribution, but it could be done only with the support of the Jamaican Government and people. We could not impose that on them.
I shall run through a few topics quickly, because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. If the Secretary of State could find a way to finance aid and trade provision outside the aid budget, nobody would support her more than I would. Indeed, Neil Martin, the first Overseas Aid Minister in the 1979 Government, told the House that the Government's objective was to eliminate the aid and trade provision.
That is what we should try to do, but we cannot send our companies into competition with other companies pursuing contracts overseas if the other companies have subsidies provided by the European Community, their national Governments or any other organisation. If we did, our companies, and therefore our constituents, would be at a disadvantage. Those overseas contracts are very important, and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) gave the example of the provision of railway lines. Many other contracts are linked to aid and trade provision.
If the Secretary of State cannot find other ways to finance aid and trade provision on her budget, I hope that it can be done on somebody else's. The aid budget should be left available for our bilateral programme, but the Secretary of State will have to fight tooth and nail to achieve that, and she will have to convince the international bodies that frown on subsidising exports to permit her to subsidise British exports. If she can solve that problem, God bless her.
I am extremely cynical about programme aid. Programme aid is the way in which the World bank, especially, has financed third-world Governments. It has given them blocks of money for a programme that has never been carried out. That money, which should have been invested because it has to be repaid, then adds to the country's debt burden. The money carries a notional interest rate—even if it is International Development Association money—and, if it is World bank money, it sometimes carries a considerable interest rate. Programme aid should be phased out.
I also wish the Secretary of State to examine food aid, and to eliminate that as well. I am not convinced that food aid helps the ordinary agriculturalist to produce food to sustain his family's development or to provide agricultural products for export. Food aid actually undermines that process.
Emergency technical assistance is, as I have said, a large element of the bilateral programme, but it has been wasted in many countries. We send people with technical expertise into Ministries, but they are frustrated in their attempts. For example, we sent a person to Zambia, 35 years ago, to teach the Zambians how to run their customs and excise unit. That person and his successor spent their careers in that job, never training any

163
Zambians or improving their customs and excise function. We could use the money in the technical assistance budget much more effectively.
We must pursue transparency in international financial institutions. We must receive a proper report of the votes by our representative in those institutions, and he should appear before a Select Committee to explain what they are doing with our money. The institutions must also adopt a policy of taking responsibility if they invest in projects and objectives that are not achieved. They should write off, against their reserves, the money that they have donated in such cases, like any other bank that makes a failed investment. The reserves are available to do that, and that would assist in the reduction of debt.
We should also save money on aid administration. We do not need all the development groups that exist expensively overseas. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) said, the Commonwealth Development Corporation and its relationship to the aid budget needs careful examination. The CDC could be used to provide more money for aid objectives by enabling it to take a shareholding and to borrow on the markets to expand its programme. It could thus make a major contribution to private investment in third-world countries.
On the subject of debt, I wish to commend to the House the report by the all-party group on overseas development, "Africa's Multilateral Debt:—A Modest Proposal". In that document we proposed that the debt of those countries should be written off. Much of that debt is owed to the international financial institutions, which refused to write it off. The countries concerned have been using our bilateral aid budget to pay interest and capital back to those institutions. We should have zero further tolerance of that process.
We must pursue the objective of getting the international financial institutions to write off debt in appropriate cases. One appropriate case has already been mentioned—Uganda, which has completed an economic programme in association with the International Monetary Fund, and has behaved impeccably for the past 10 years. Uganda took part in the HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—initiative, which I understand has failed because Germany, Japan and the United States now oppose the proposals that were agreed at the most recent World bank conference.
I urge a return to that subject, to make certain that the debt is considered as a whole. There is debt to international financial institutions, bilateral debt, which we should continue to write off where appropriate, and private debts—usually, in the case of Africa, trade debts. Those all need to be considered as part of the whole debt. Then manageable debt repayment must be agreed with the countries concerned. If necessary, that must be financed by gold sales through the IMF or in other ways.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, we must concentrate aid where it can work and can benefit the poor. We must make hard-headed decisions that, in certain countries, we cannot help. India is one example, because India can help itself. It is a huge country, and a nuclear power with huge armed forces, yet it takes a lion's share of our bilateral aid programme.
164
The problems of India are not lack of money but socio-religious problems, which we cannot affect. Therefore, we should say to India, "You must stand on your own. We will assist with private investment, and encourage that in every possible way, but we shall not make you a recipient of our bilateral aid budget. You must find ways to change your community, so that the poorest people in your country can benefit from the increasing riches of India as a whole."
I know that that will affect the aid statistics, because, on a "per head" basis, India is one of the poorest countries. But India can help itself if it wishes to, and it must make the changes itself. Similar remarks could be made about Bangladesh.
In summary, we must make certain that good government is there—economic government, government with the right objectives. We must encourage private sector investment in partnership with the aid programme. Some of the underlying infrastructure benefits, such as clean water, roads, and education and health systems, can be provided by the aid element. Then private investment can go in behind that, and be successful.
Social spending on health, housing and education can grow out of the success of the economies in which we invest, and can then be sustained by the taxes that, as a result of the increased prosperity that our aid budget and our private investment are producing, can be raised in the countries concerned. That is how we can increase employment and enable the people of third-world countries to work their way out of poverty, in partnership with the efforts of this country in both the private and the public sector.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Obviously this is a serious and multi-faceted subject, but Back-Bench speeches are now running at more than 15 minutes each, on average. More hon. Members will be content at the end of the debate if shorter speeches are made, so I appeal to the House to that end.
7.13 pm
Ann Clwyd: The House has heard me say many times that the European Parliament had many advantages, one of them being that Members due to speak in a debate knew exactly when they would be called and time was strictly limited. One was lucky to be given more than three minutes in a debate and if anyone overran the allotted times the extra period was taken off the time allowed to other members of the same political group. That is an excellent idea, and I hope that it will be one of the many things that we consider when we talk about reform of this House.
First, I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development, who has left the Chamber for a moment, and the Under-Secretary of State. I am pleased to see both of them in their posts because I know that they will vigorously defend the aims of development and aid, as the Secretary of State has already spelt out. She especially emphasised the reduction of poverty and the focusing of much of the aid on women. That will be a good investment, because whenever aid is focused on women in the third world, we more than multiply the money that is allocated in the first place.

165
I echo what has been said about Jim Lester, who was dedicated to the subject of international development and spoke in many such debates with great feeling and commitment. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), his parliamentary successor, will focus on the same issues if his speech today is anything to go by. I congratulate my hon. Friend on an interesting maiden speech.
I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State back in the Chamber. I was just saying how glad I was that she holds that post, because if anyone can promote such policies, especially for the poor and for women, she can. I am sure that she will sweep aside all who try to obstruct her way, and she can be sure that we are all behind her in that respect.
Seven years ago, a Malaysian journalist came to see me. I did not know him; he telephoned me out of the blue to say that he had information that I would find of great interest. Being a former journalist myself, and knowing that if journalists ask to see somebody they usually have a story, especially if they come from as far afield as Malaysia, I arranged to see him.
What that man told me was both fascinating and worrying. He told me about the Pergau dam, and how it was not helping the poor in Malaysia but promoting policies disadvantageous to them, because thousands of people were moved out of the way to make way for it. On the basis of what he told me, I submitted a report to the National Audit Office. The rest is known.
After the NAO investigation it was found that the Government were misusing overseas aid money. The High Court found that the then Foreign Secretary had unlawfully disbursed millions of pounds of public money, in contravention of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. I notice that the shadow Secretary of State for International Development thought it convenient to forget about that this afternoon.
The previous Government were not bothered by that humiliating indictment of their aid policies, and they continued to defend the indefensible diversion of taxpayers' money away from the world's poor, whom it is intended to benefit. They did no more than pay lip service to human rights.
I shall focus briefly on Indonesia, because many of us are concerned about Britain's bilateral aid relationship with that country, which has been marked by substantial increases in aid, out of all proportion to Indonesia's relative poverty and the human rights record of the Suharto regime.
In 1995 I published a report on British aid to Indonesia which demonstrated that the previous Government continued to flout their statutory obligations by funding aid projects that were developmentally unsound and positively harmful to the people of Indonesia and, in some cases, to the people of East Timor.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly said that she wishes to focus British aid on poverty reduction, and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said that it was important to concentrate our aid and assistance where they are needed. We all agree with that. Two questions arise, however—whether Indonesia's relative poverty justifies its current share of the aid programme, and whether aid provided for specific projects is effective in alleviating poverty and promoting human development.
166
The World bank categorises Indonesia as a middle-income country, with a 1995 gross national product of $980 per capita—it is projected to be more than $1,000 by the end of the century—but British aid has more than doubled, from £25 million in 1990–91 to £57 million in 1995-96, making it the eighth largest recipient of British aid, receiving more than any other Commonwealth country. Its record of economic growth and its increasing national wealth hide the reality of unequal wealth distribution and many millions of people still living below the poverty line
The British aid programme has done little to alleviate the suffering of Indonesia's poor. According to the United Nations Development Programme, only 6.6 per cent. of British aid to Indonesia, and only 2.9 per cent. of aid from all Indonesia's donors, is spent on human development priority areas.
The projects that I examined in my report, "British Aid to Indonesia—The Continuing Scandal", which went to the National Audit Office and has been considered by the Public Accounts Committee and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, are evidence of the low priority given to poverty reduction and human development.
One project in particular shows that British aid was misdirected. If we give aid to Indonesia in the future, I hope that it will be properly directed. Britain funded the paramilitary Indonesian national police. In so doing, it breached the guidelines of the Overseas Development Administration on aid to non-military security organisations and to institutions, such as the INP, which fail to respect human rights and to practise good government.
Financial assistance provided by Britain was completely ineffective, as the INP"s appalling human rights record has failed to improve in recent years. In any event, human rights were not even addressed by British trainers and advisers. According to the ODA, the developmental benefits of the project were seen
"as the encouragement of the Indonesian police towards community policing in terms of improved human rights".
The NAO noted that the ODA
"specifically excluded references to human rights in the proposed training programme"
and went on to say:
"there is only limited evidence to suggest that the project has been effective in meeting the Administration's objectives of encouraging the Indonesian Police towards community policing".
Incredibly, the project's only achievements appear to have been
"improved reception desk and driving/vehicle licence issuing procedures".
That was the result of our training of the Indonesian police. In other words, the project was a complete and utter failure.
I also detailed to the NAO evidence of the killing of civilians by the Indonesian police and of other atrocities over a number of years. I provided a sworn statement by an East Timorese refugee detailing the severe human rights abuses committed under the command responsibility of an Indonesian police officer trained in Britain under the ODA's training programme.
The ODA's suggestion of the time, that
"there has been a slow but detectable improvement in Indonesia's general human rights record in recent years"
was completely disingenuous and not supported by the facts. As everybody knows, nothing has changed in that country. Recently, the police were prominent in the

167
violent suppression of the pro-democracy protests which erupted in Indonesia last year and in the run-up to the elections this year.
Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend may be aware, because she signed early-day motion 176. "Indonesia and Mukhtar Pakpahan", that Mr. Pakpahan is a most distinguished trade union leader in prison on trumped-up charges and suffering from serious illnesses. The motion was signed by more than 150 hon. Members, but by no Conservative Members so far as I know, and calls for his early release. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in calling for the Indonesian authorities, if they read this debate, to allow that brave and distinguished trade union leader to go abroad for medical treatment.
Ann Clwyd: I completely agree. I signed the motion and I entirely support my hon. Friend's actions in attempting to get Mr. Pakpahan released for urgent medical treatment. Too many people are languishing in Indonesian prisons who have done nothing more than stand up for their own human rights—rights that every person in Britain would take for granted.
The failure of the police project is not surprising, as the ODA was given little time to influence its design or scope because of the need to approve it quickly. That urgent need arose because of the imminence of arms sales contracts. The NAO notes:
"In September 1985, the British Ambassador in Jakarta considered that failure to provide an offer of aid on the television and radio studios proposals could have an effect on potential defence and commercial sales then being negotiated"
and says that the British embassy in Jakarta
"recommended that a good offer of aid needed to be made quickly as they considered that the disappointment to the Government of Indonesia would be correspondingly great and could affect a number of other interesting pieces of business likely to come to the UK. These included both potential defence and commercial sales."
I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about aid and trade provision. I cannot understand why the Conservatives continue to claim that there was no link between aid and arms sales, when it was clear from the NAO report that one of the main reasons for pushing through the project at speed and without any proper appraisal or consideration of its development merits was to gain lucrative arms sales for Britain.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is conducting an important review, and she knows that I am not trying to push her. I am simply hoping that in considering aid for Indonesia or any other country with a bad human rights record she will uphold the statements made by many of our Front-Bench colleagues about the Government's emphasis on human rights and an ethical approach to foreign policy.
Human rights should be considered at both country and project level, for all country programmes and all projects. They should be considered at design, appraisal and monitoring stages. If they are not, projects will not promote real development or provide value for money.
I hope that no aid will go to East Timor. The previous Government gave aid for transmigration of Indonesians to East Timor. That programme of forced land resettlement and land deprivation has come to an end only recently.
168
It diluted the population of East. Timor so as to influence the result if ever the people there get what the United Nations want them to get—the opportunity for a referendum so that they can make up their own minds about whom they want to govern them. It is disgraceful that this country gave aid for transmigration. These are the very things for which we used to condemn Saddam Hussein—the forced removal of people from one side of the country to another, to an area with which they are not familiar and have no links. That is a disgraceful use of British aid.
Finally, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to suspend aid to Indonesia until significant human rights improvements occur, to ensure that human rights play a greater role at every level of project assessment, to look to possible reform of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 so as to stop aid and arms links, and to ensure that poverty reduction is the primary aim, in line with her stated aims. I hope that my right hon. Friend will apply all those considerations to all aid and development projects—something that the previous Government said they did but, in reality, never did.
7.30 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I promise to be brief. I wish to compliment my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her speech and her appointment and, reaching across party lines, I also wish to compliment her predecessor. I speak from personal experience at the sharp end of these things, and I know of no one more effective, dedicated or persistent than Lady Chalker in helping the afflicted in zones of conflict. Her record was remarkable and will long be remembered. I recall being stuck in central Bosnia in a convoy with the ODA. I looked behind me and saw a truck which the driver had christened "Baroness Chalker of Wallasey". I know of very few politicians who deserve that kind of compliment.
We now have a new Government, a new Department, a new Secretary of State and, no doubt, a new attitude and a new definition, perhaps, of the national interest. There may be a new relationship—or perhaps no relationship at all—between trade and aid. Does this mean that we throw foreign aid money about like confetti? Of course it does not. We must be clear-eyed as well as compassionate, and we must learn the lessons of the past. If we do not, we shall surely be doomed to repeat them.
I speak in a limited way and from personal experience only. A simple motto of two words commends itself to me: never again. Never again must we push food aid into an active war zone when we and the agencies associated with us do not control the secondary distribution. If we do that, we may well find that we prolong rather than shorten the conflict because we are feeding the front-line troops or, at best, putting food in through the window while the murderer stands at the door.
We should confine aid to what is effective, even if it is limited and unspectacular. Never again must a photo opportunity masquerade as policy. We need something simple, as happened in Sarajevo in the summer of 1995 when ODA engineers succeeded before the war was over in restoring gas to the city through gas lines that ran through active minefields. That was an extraordinary contribution by the ODA.
Let there be conditionality. If a Government deny human rights to their own people and threaten other countries, and if their infrastructure is sustained by foreign

169
aid while they lavish their resources on arms, we should not be throwing public money at them. But even conditionality has its limits. Aid can reward and aid can punish. Most of all, however, aid is intended to help the innocent victims of conflict.
In my personal experience, I have observed that the British people are out ahead of their Government and have led the way. It was the British people who raised money for refugees, took refugees into their homes and drove convoys of aid through front lines. In one case, a driver took a fire engine through sniper alley to help people on the other side. Those people made a difference, and the new Department will have achieved something if the idealism of the people is matched by the idealism of the Government and of this House.
7.34 pm
Ms Oona King: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I am particularly grateful for the forbearance of colleagues who have sat through two months of maiden speeches. I wish to begin by thanking the people of Bethnal Green and Bow for the privilege and honour of electing me to represent them in the House.
I am particularly honoured to follow in the footsteps of my predecessor, the right hon. Peter Shore, who returns to Westminster as Lord Shore of Stepney. Lord Shore represented his constituency for a remarkable 32 years, during which time he greatly distinguished himself and rose to the rank of Minister. He always used his elevated status to benefit his constituents. I therefore wish to extend their heartfelt thanks to Lord and Lady Shore, who are genuinely admired and respected in my constituency.
I also wish to pay tribute to Mildred Gordon, the former Member for Bow and Poplar. She has been a tireless campaigner on local issues, and continues to help me on such issues, most notably the Civilians Remembered campaign. We hope to get an adequate memorial for those civilians in London who suffered and died during the second world war. I hope to emulate the dedication and commitment that both my predecessors brought to the House.
There are four other hon. Members to whom I wish to pay tribute and in whose footsteps I tread—my hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). These four black Members of Parliament, elected in 1987, have played a critical role in extending the representative nature of our democracy. I am also honoured to be the second black woman to take up a seat in this Chamber.
What gives me most pleasure is representing a truly multicultural constituency. Bethnal Green and Bow is one of the most multicultural constituencies in Britain. It has within it the heart of the east end, an area that has achieved almost mythical status in the minds of British schoolchildren. The east end's rich cultural heritage is unique. Since the 16th century. Tower Hamlets has witnessed a succession of immigrants, from the Huguenots to the Irish, the Jews, the Africans, the Chinese, the Somalis, the West Indians, the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis. I pay tribute to the Bangladeshi community who, despite suffering some of the worst
170
deprivation in this country, continue to play a constructive and productive role in society, particularly in the business community.
I wish to pay tribute also to the east end's white community. Cockneys are legendary, as are their drive, ambition, courage and wit. I genuinely give thanks that my children will be born in the east end and brought up as east enders. I salute those who continue to bind our cosmopolitan community together with tolerance and respect. For me, racism is not an academic point. My father is black and my mother is Jewish. As a child in Newcastle, my mother was lined up against a wall and stoned because—as her schoolmates put it—she, as a Jew, was responsible for the death of their Lord.
My father has been in exile for 32 years from his country as a result of the racist practices of a racist state. I am "multi-ethnic", although I have also been called names such as yid, nigger, wog, half-caste and mongrel. Those are unparliamentary terms, but I hope that my background can be a bridge between two cultures.
I love the east end because it is Britain's answer to Manhattan's melting pot. It remains a remarkable place, only a stone's throw from Westminster. I might be slightly biased, but it is without doubt the jewel in Britain's urban inner-city crown—do not laugh, we actually have the Crown jewels in the Tower of London. There are also our hidden treasures, such as Spitalfields, which has just had a fantastically successful festival. There are more artists in my constituency per square yard than in any other place in Europe. Every name evokes a response: Victoria park, Columbia flower market, Whitechapel art gallery, Stepney, Bow, Wapping, Mile End, Aldgate. Anonymity is not an attribute with which my constituency is acquainted.
I confess to being hopelessly proud of my constituency. It is where hardship and deprivation gave birth to Britain's greatest social reforms. Let us not forget that William Beveridge and Clement Attlee both lived in the east end and worked at Toynbee hall. Both were surrounded by an east end infant mortality rate of 55 per cent. Their experiences led them to formulate the radical programme of social reform that led to our NHS.
The east end also has a celebrated tradition in the credentials of organised labour. It was where Ben Tillett led the dockers and where the match girls went on strike in 1880 to improve their pay of 30p for a 60-hour week. Those early trade unionists could have only dreamt of the "fairness, not favours" that the new Labour Government offer.
"Fairness, not favours" is the essential characteristic of this debate. Is it fair that in 1997 more than I billion people live in absolute poverty, or that the poorest 20 per cent. have seen their share of the global cake reduced to less than 2 per cent? That is truly crumbs scattered from the table. The answer, of course, is that life is not fair. But what if making life fairer also makes life more stable and sustainable? Those are things that big business holds dear to its heart. Educating Government and business to act in that way is the task of the new Department of International Development.
I applaud my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for putting development at the heart of government. I applaud her also for her fixation, as it has been described by a Conservative Member, on the eradication of poverty. I, too, have a fixation: an image that I can

171
never wipe from my mind, of a young man of 20 or 25 lying on a railway station platform in Delhi. His moans were barely audible. When I looked closer, I saw that sores covered his entire body. Looking closer still. I saw that the sores were infested with maggots. I say that not for effect but because I witnessed that man literally being eaten alive. At the time, I felt that I could do nothing other than make the pitiful offer of water, which was a bit like offering a bandage to a terminally ill cancer patient. Eventually, I turned away from that man and got on the train. I have never been able to get that man's face and suffering out of my mind. There are millions of people around the world who are literally and metaphorically being eaten alive by poverty. That is why the Government's White Paper, the first for 22 years on the subject, is so desperately needed and so welcome.
There is no doubt that Britain's international development policy needs a new direction. The Secretary of State signalled a shift this morning by hoisting the British flag at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Another important shift in our policy is the refocus on tackling abject poverty and the causes of poverty. As the Government have outlined, there is a general acknowledgment that by 2015 we could halve the number of people in poverty if we can find the political will. People sometimes ask: "What do politicians do? What is a politician's job?' It is our job to find and ignite that political will, because, in the meantime, 35,000 children die every day from preventable diseases while we try to do our job.
On children's suffering, I would like to make the obvious point that children become adults. I have always found it curious that an abandoned child can make us weep for the sake of humanity but, once that child becomes an adult, we feel free to dry our tears. It is humanity that is in the balance, not just humanity's children. We must educate ourselves to recognise our global connections. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, we cannot privatise the problems facing the planet.
The most important factor for the countries of the south is not the aid, or development assistance, that they can receive from us in the north, but the harsh trading terms imposed on them by the north. We do not merely give with one hand and take away with the other; we give with one hand, then knock them over the head, beat them unconscious and rob them with the other. During the decade since the onset of the debt crisis in 1982, the poor countries of the south have exported to the rich countries of the north the equivalent of six times the aid under the Marshall plan, the programme agreed at Bretton Woods to help Europe recover after the second world war. Let us nail the lie once and for all: we are not net contributors to the poorest countries of the world; they are net contributors to us.
We must bring coherence to our strategy for eradicating poverty. That is what the Government set out to do. That means considering, in the round, the problems of globalisation and liberalisation. On that point, I thank Oxfam and the many other excellent non-governmental organisations that have done so much work to point out that globalisation is a double-edged sword. While opportunities open up, competition intensifies. Corporate directors are better able to protect themselves from the
172
consequences of competition than those at the bottom of the pile. Without internationally agreed standards, greater competition is achieved at the expense of unacceptably low labour standards and environmental degradation.
The poorest people in the world still earn what the match girls in my constituency earned in 1880–30p a week. In Nicaragua, I worked with people who earned not much more than that. To lessen their inestimable suffering is the vast and unenviable task that the Government have set themselves. It will require a mammoth effort to educate ourselves, but we know the Government's commitment to education. In 1846, the French historian, Jules Michelet, said:
"What is the first part of politics? Education. And the second part? Education. And the third? Education."
One hundred anti fifty years later, that has a reassuringly familiar ring to it.
Let us educate ourselves on the needs of humanity. This Government embrace one-nation politics, but we must go further: one nation, one planet, one future. That is the lesson that we must learn from this debate.
7.48 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green anti Bow (Ms King) on a truly first-class maiden speech. It was pertinent and relevant and everyone who heard it will remember it for a long time. It says much for the thriving abilities of the House of Commons that Members such as her come to us. Among hon. Members' greatest concerns as we go around our constituencies is the feeling that too many people have become disillusioned with contemporary politics. Her presence, and that of many other new Members, can only augur well for the well-being of Westminster as a whole.
The whole House will want to thank the Secretary of State and the business managers for giving us the opportunity to debate international development policies. All too often, we have a debate once a White Paper has been published, not before. I appreciate the Secretary of State's difficulties. I am sure that she arrived in her Department and was confronted with a budget of which—for perfectly good reasons which we all understand—more and more is taken each year for multilateral projects and aid. There is nothing wrong with multilateral aid. There is much that is good about it, but it requires some fairly strong scrutiny and means that the scope for United Kingdom bilateral aid is more limited. One appreciates the tension created by that scope being shrunk.
As the Under—Secretary of State for International Development said yesterday, the first calls on the bilateral aid programme are the dependent territories. We are seeing that clearly in what is having to happen in Montserrat. There cannot be a scintilla of criticism for what the Department of International Development or the West Indian and Atlantic department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is doing in Montserrat. I am sure that everyone is doing all that can be done. Some of the comments in the press today were less than fair.
Anyone who has been fortunate enough to visit Montserrat, as I did when I was a Minister, recognises that the logistics of that island are difficult. One has a great understanding of the difficulties that the Government face in this predicament. It must be difficult to decide whether to rebuild Montserrat or to relocate

173
people. I have no doubt that, in due course, those on the Treasury Bench will explain to the House, having consulted the people and the Government of Montserrat, what they intend to do. One appreciates that countries such as Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos Islands and others take up a substantial part of the bilateral aid budget.
I understand why the Government want to have a look at how international development money is spent, but I am concerned that in the process we may not include the private sector sufficiently. Around the world there is much that United Kingdom industry, technology and science can, and do, offer to the developing world. It was impressive to see the Cairo waste water project undertaken by Thames Water and others, with some help from the Overseas Development Administration. Many such first-class projects around the world have brought water, electricity and power to thousand of millions of people who would not have had them without the contribution of United Kingdom know-how and technology.
As Oxfam says in the briefing paper that it has sent to all Members of Parliament:
"In the modern globalised economy, the economic success of any country depends heavily on trade and on the investment it can attract."
We have to involve the private sector. I noticed that Magnus Linklater, in his article in The Times a few days ago, said:
"The future of development depends on investment from the private sector as much as it dots on Government aid. The Third World needs British goods, technology, experience, management techniques and long-term assistance. It is more efficient and effective than anything a non-governmental organisation can provide."
I do not want to get hung up on whether we should have the aid and trade provision in its existing form. It is included in forward public spending plans for the next three years. I hope that the Government's White Paper will make clear the role that they see for the United Kingdom private sector in our development projects and ensure that it has a role to play.
As other hon. Members have said, there has been a fundamental review of ODA expenditure. The main report was published as recently as July 1995. It concluded that ATP had a useful purpose and said:
"Given the signs that the Helsinki disciplines are reducing demand, and that the quality of ATP projects since the 1993 reforms is no different from that of bilateral country programmes as a whole, there is little case for winding up the scheme."
I was slightly surprised, therefore, by the Secretary of State's recent comments to the House in oral questions and I hope that she can explain them to the House. She said:
"we are reviewing the aid and trade provision. There is much evidence that it is neither developmentally nor commercially beneficial."
I am not sure what that evidence is or where it comes from. She went on to say:
"I am sure that Conservative Members would not want to featherbed the inefficiency of British companies by a sort of backward-looking tying of minor parts of the aid programme when all the evidence and research undertaken by my Department and the OECD shows that it encourages inefficiency and damages the developmental quality of aid projects."—[Officicial Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 830–31.]
174
But many, if not all—so far as I know—such projects have been first-class examples of United Kingdom industry and technology. It would help the House if we had some understanding of the way in which the Secretary of State felt that such projects had failed. Certainly no one wishes to featherbed inefficient United Kingdom industry—far from it—but I hope that we can find a mechanism in the development programme for involving the best of British industry and technology.
I understand that the Secretary of State is due to make a speech next week on the aid and trade provision. I hope that the potential of British industry can be widely promulgated. Some superb parts of the United Kingdom industry are apprehensive and feel that it is being signalled that their contribution to the developing world is suspect.
The aid and trade provision is overshadowed by the long debate over Pergau. Pergau was an exceptional circumstance and has proved to be very much a one-off. No other project has attracted that sort of criticism. Many other projects to which the private sector has contributed in recent decades have made a long and enduring contribution in the countries in which the investment was made. It would be a tragedy if we minimalised the contribution that United Kingdom industry, technology and exporters can make, in partnership with the Department of International Development and others, to helping the economies of developing countries. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Government will make it clear that there are ways in which the best of British industry, technology and science can continue to make an enduring contribution to development aid and that they do not intend to squeeze out the private sector or marginalise it. It would be a great pity if that happened.
7.57 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: One of the fears that one has as a Member of Parliament of long standing is that one might have to congratulate an hon. Member on a maiden speech that was not of the quality for which one might have hoped. However, I have no fear in saying that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) was first rate. I am sure that she will make a tremendous contribution to the House.
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) on her appointment as Secretary of State for International Development and on the running start that she has made. It is fitting that such a dedicated internationalist with regard to social justice and environmentalism should take up the reins of this important new Department.
Social justice and environmental protection go hand in hand. It is precisely that point that must never be forgotten. It is difficult to think of a country in need of our help that has not been a colony of either Britain or one of our European neighbours. That said, we have not only a special knowledge of many developing countries but a special responsibility for them.
This marriage of social justice and environmental protection has brought some excellent initiatives. They include fair trade—trade not aid, as it is known—intermediate technology and, in agriculture, the "farmer first" approach, pioneered by Robert Chambers. Such initiatives tackle poverty by putting control in the hands of the people, not the aid workers. Poverty is not a choice

175
or a state of mind, but a harsh reality that sometimes drives people to exhaust the very land on which they depend. It we are to alleviate poverty, social justice must be as much about empowerment as about basic rights. Another important element in the alleviation of poverty is access—access to land, to water and shelter, to proper justice, to dignified working rights and to information. Those points are not separate, but intrinsically linked.
It is heartening to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concurs with me on the marriage of social justice and environmental protection. In a recent written answer, she said that her priority in the new Department would be the
"elimination of poverty through sustainable development. This goal is impossible to achieve without the early stabilisation of world population."—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296. c. 557.]
As chair of the all-party group on population development and reproductive health, I welcome those comments.
I wish to expand on two points involving the critical subject of world population growth: access to information and the empowerment of people, particularly women. We must get one thing straight. When considering global population growth, one does not have to be a genius to see that the major factor associated with large families is poverty. If there was a high probability that a large number of my children could die of disease and I did not have a pension. I would be encouraged to have a large family.
If we are to begin to tackle poverty and disease and to help our brothers and sisters throughout the world to lead fruitful and fulfilling lives, we must provide them with access to appropriate reproductive health care. In many other parts of the world where local resources are just adequate to provide for smaller families, there are women who want to plan their families with fewer children. As before, they need access—they need access to family planning. When 70 per cent. of the 1.3 billion people living in poverty are women, such access is critical.
In both scenarios, access to reproductive health clinics is vital. The world population in 1996 was 5.77 billion. The United Nations medium-term projection is that that figure will grow to 9.4 billion by 2050. If poverty is the track of the railway population train and social justice the brake, the critical lever is the empowerment of women. Without environmental protection, there is nowhere to go once we have stopped the train.
I endorse the concepts of the reproductive and sexual health rights enshrined in the 1994 Cairo programme of action, agreed at the United Nations international conference on population and development, and the 1995 Beijing platform for action agreed at the fourth world conference on women. I call on the Department of International Development, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department of Health to ensure that those international principles and standards are reflected in the implementation of reproductive and sexual health policy programmes and services.
A critical element of the international agenda is how we measure success. The key factor which we have to tackle is poverty. Given that the so-called developed world has not entirely tackled poverty, the bald use of gross domestic product is not necessarily a good measure of quality of life. Those countries with a high GDP may
176
not enhance their population's environment. We need to pay more attention to alternative indicators being pioneered by many non-governmental organisations. One such indicator is the index of sustainable economic welfare, which makes adjustments for aspects of people's lives that GDP ignores. However we measure success, we must succeed—not just for the developing world, but for the world as a whole.
8.3 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Many good things have come out of the east end of London, including a long-running television drama. Although no one would pretend that the House of Commons is likely to command the same audiences as that programme, if the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Row (Ms King) continues to speak as she did tonight, the cable television audience for the House of Commons will increase. I congratulate her on her maiden speech.
As many others have done, I should like to welcome the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) to her post as Secretary of State for International Development. I also welcome the Under"Secretary to his post. I have known the right hon. Lady for quite a long time and we have worked together on one or two occasions. She was useless in at least one of those roles: she was my pair for a while, but she was so conscientious that she was completely worthless to me. Nevertheless, her conscientiousness will stand the world's poor in good stead.
As has been said, self-interest and altruism combine in this job. We have a duty to other humans. It is nonsense to suggest that it is an exclusively Christian duty, but Christians should certainly share that sense of duty—even if no one else does. I am glad to say that, in many parts of the world. Christians actively fulfil that duty.
The imbalance of resources, about which we have heard so much tonight, leads to instability, war, disease and—something which has hardly been mentioned in the debate and about which I do not know enough to make a specialist contribution—refugees. It is extraordinary that we have heard so little about refugees because the refugee problem is one of the world's greatest problems, and it is rapidly growing. Many refugees have been condemned to appallingly constricted lives and frequently have little opportunity. Even if they are welcomed at first, they rapidly become a burden on their hosts, who become understandably resentful of their presence. I hope that another contributor to the debate will address that serious matter.
We have also heard about pollution. I believe that most anti-pollution campaigns are a luxury for the rich. If someone is rich enough to do something about a polluted river, he is not normally one of the world's poor. We must take on the responsibility; it has taken us long enough to clean the Thames. It is interesting that the great contribution of Chadwick and his colleagues in introducing drains into British cities was almost entirely because the rich suddenly woke up to the fact that one day they, too, might get cholera. Although there was also a humanitarian aspect, that was the driving force that released the floods of money required.
The job involves detail as well as principles. As has been said, the programme must be cost-effective. As I hinted in an earlier intervention, I believe that

177
volunteers are a major element of that cost-effectiveness. Organisations such as Voluntary Service Overseas reckon that the cost of sending one of their—often highly skilled—volunteers abroad for a year is less than £12,000. That is extraordinarily cost-effective when compared with much of the other aid that is sent abroad. Those volunteers do not stay very long; everyone knows that they are on limited contracts; they do not disrupt the local economy or the local hierarchy. One of the rules of Voluntary Service Overseas is that a volunteer may not go if a local person could do the job equally well. I very much welcome those speakers who have urged the Secretary of State to consider expanding that opportunity.
I hope that the review will be detailed. There are a number of small but telling ways in which the rules of one part of either the Government or the Department militate against the expressed objectives of another. For example, a number of young British people who have qualified as doctors, nurses or schoolteachers decide to work abroad. When they wish to return—perhaps to take a further qualification before returning to contribute to the overseas country—they are charged the full rate as overseas students even though they are British citizens. That cannot make sense. It is nonsense that they should have to pay—they are usually self-funded—the full rate of an overseas student, and I hope that we can look into that.
We have splendid scholarships, such as the Chevening scholarships, for overseas people to come here to learn skills that are of use to their country. Most of those scholarships are not differentiated into bands, with the result that a health worker may have to compete against an engineer or financial expert for a scholarship. It would not be difficult to create priority bands, which would ensure that some people involved in social services got a greater opportunity than they currently enjoy. Many of the countries that send such students are obsessed solely with engineering, financial or computer skills and do not think about the need to improve their health and social services infrastructure.
Earlier, the debate touched on the question of differentiation between countries. We are approaching a point where some of the developing countries are infinitely richer than others, yet all are lumped together for the purposes of many elements of aid. Overseas students who obtain nearly all their money from a donor—whether from the British Council or via the international development budget—are charged exactly the same as self-funding students from Malaysia or some other rich country. That is a small point that needs to be considered.
We should concentrate far more on practical projects. I am sure that the Secretary of State is determined to resist demands for high-tech machinery in countries where there is neither the power to run it nor the staff to maintain it. Many countries are littered with scanning machines and other highly advanced equipment that they have absolutely no way of using. There has usually been connivance between a pushy salesman and someone wanting to ingratiate themselves with whoever wanted the equipment, using aid money to buy a machine that will lie idle when, for the same amount of money, they could have done much better.
We also want to support low-cost projects. In India, I have seen many examples where training children to educate not only their peers but their parents and indeed the whole village in simple hygiene and health care—
178
simple messages—has transformed the lives of villagers. Similarly, women are the key to much development. Drawing again on India, which is the country I know best, I have seen women who have been given basic training and a simple kit transforming the care of everyone in the village. They are trained to diagnose common illnesses and refer them—at once, if necessary—to a health centre; and they can dispense vitamins and simple drugs, carry out injections and keep an eye on child development.
Many of those women develop so fast, it is wonderful to see—their self-confidence increases and I know of one woman who became chairperson of the panchayat or local parish council. The difference such projects make is tangible. As my wife frequently points out to me, when we see riots in foreign countries on television, we see only men, because the women are too busy working. It is worth remembering that women carry the main burden in most places.
The aid world is full of corruption and I urge Ministers to take a serious view of how our aid budget feeds it and what international action can be taken to cut it out. Stopping corruption is terribly important. It takes many forms, such as diversion of aid directly into the wrong pockets and inappropriate projects being chosen because of bribery or because a firm wants a future, bigger contract.
Aid personnel and many consultants are being awarded salaries and fees that are obscenely high in relation to the incomes of those whom they are seeking to help. For example, the United Nations should be far more rigorous in its cost-benefit analysis when deciding whom to send abroad to assist with its programmes. If a year's salary and expenses for one consultant would, for example, pay for 500 village development workers, one has to be jolly sure that employing that consultant will deliver the goods, rather than giving the money to the village development workers. We often do not consider that.
It is important to encourage those British institutions that are seeking to set up training institutions within the countries that need help, instead of expecting their students to come to enormously expensive centres in the west, where practical placements are difficult to find. In some senses, students get inferior training by coming to London, but want to come here because it is prestigious. The cost of their doing so is out of all proportion and there is no reason why developing countries should not sustain training centres.
I have a tenuous connection with a project in Delhi. In a city dominated by the Bharatiya Janata party or BJP—the Hindu fundamentalist Government—efforts are being made to double the project's size, even though the project is not sure that that is desirable. It runs 25 slums in Delhi and the reason why the BJP wants it to expand, even though it is run by a Christian organisation, is that the Christians are not misusing the money. The money is going straight into the work. The medical superintendent of one of the largest ODA projects—an expansion of one of the Delhi hospitals that will nearly double its size—is a man whose simplicity is so amazing that I felt quite humbled when I visited his home.
One of the other elements of corruption can be seen when big western companies deliberately target poor populations to sell abroad what they have been prevented by their domestic Governments from selling at home—for example, tobacco companies. Similarly, companies such

179
as Nestlé are quite ruthless about promoting powdered baby milk in countries where they know that the chances of getting water fit to mix it up properly are very slight. Mother's milk would be infinitely better for the children. Stopping that sort of thing takes concerted action.
Finally, I emphasise the enormous importance of children's rights. Save the Children Fund lobbied me to say that we might well review our stance on children's rights—at least in relation to aid—against the UN convention on the rights of the child. That is something that we might usefully do and I think that we should. A year ago, in Coventry, I ran a day event that produced, among other things, a manifesto created mainly by young people for young people that set out what they wanted to see put into the election manifestos. One of the things that they said that they wanted was either a Minister for children or a commissioner for children. I hope that the new Department will consider every policy it pursues against the question of whether it enhances or damages the rights and aspirations of children. Children comprise more than half of the population in many of the countries we want most to help and, in the end, they are the future.
I wish the new Department well. I hope that I can be of some help to it and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on the start that they have made.
8.19 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen?: As a number of other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall try to truncate my speech. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must therefore take as read all the nice comments about her that I was going to make—but I congratulate her on her appointment: she will be an important member of the Cabinet, injecting into it the moral purpose that international development is about. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on the best maiden speech that I have heard in my 14 years in the House. I hope that we shall hear many more such speeches.
As I said, I shall not go into much of the detail that was in my speech. I was going to talk about the need for fair trade, and, indeed, I consider that important. I believe that many countries would rather have more fair trade than more aid, and that we should concentrate on that while trying progressively to remove the protectionism that exists largely in the western world.
Inequality is a problem. One fifth of the world is in dire poverty, with people living on less than $1 a day. The richest fifth has 60 times as much wealth as the poorest, and the gap is increasing. It has doubled since the 1960s. We must tackle that inequality by, at least, increasing the wealth of the poorest in a sustainable way.
Much has been said about debt, and Uganda has been given as an example. Uganda now spends £1 per person on health care and £5.50 on debt repayment. There should be a massive write-off of debt in the poorer nations.
I welcome the new Government's important policy shift towards the eradication of poverty, and away from the last Government's commercial and political links policy, which led to the affair of the Pergau dam. Under that policy, 76p of every £1 of aid was given only if the poor country receiving it used it to buy British, and there was also an unacknowledged but clearly established link with the purchase of arms.
180
That brings me to my main point. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an excellent speech, it contained one omission: my right hon. Friend did not mention the impact of the arms trade on the developing world. There is a connection between that trade and the civil wars that result from it—or even the wars between nations that impoverish people further. Civil wars devastate countries, plunging them and their people deeper into poverty. Britain has prospered by selling arms; jobs in the trade are subsidised to the tune of £12,500 each. We are the world's third largest seller of arms, and four fifths of those arms go to the third world. Every day, the Government pledge about £5 million of taxpayers' money to back arms exports. The whole process is deeply corrupting, counter-productive and murderous.
Recent examples of scandals in this country include the arms to Iraq and Jonathan Aitken affairs. The wars fuelled by the trade cause starvation, the uprooting of people and the flow of refugees; they create world instability. I welcome the Government's moratorium on land mines and their effort to secure a world ban, but I think that much more should be done to curtail the arms trade, in this country and internationally. I know that the Government are working for a European Union code of conduct governing arms sales, and I welcome that, but I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use her influence in the Government, across Departments, to reduce the arms trade in the interests of third-world development.
The Booker prize-winning author Ben Okri has said:
"As he millennium draws to a close … this is precisely the time to dream the best dream of all: that no peoples will know starvation, that no nation will be oppressed by another, that tyranny will not be able to exist unpunished, that liberty be given a more glorious song."
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to sing sweetly for international development.
8.24 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen)—or, rather, to hear him speak, as this is the first occasion on which I have been able to follow him—because of the directness of the message that he conveys to the House. I endorse his quotation from Ben Okri: the same hope is felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I echo what my hon. Friends, and Labour Members, have said about the Secretary of State's predecessor, Lady Chalker. I had the privilege of working with her in the Foreign Office for two years—and it really was a privilege. We have heard how effective she was as Minister for Overseas Development, but she was also hugely effective in carrying out her diplomatic responsibility for Africa. That is one of the responsibilities that have been lost following the introduction of a new Department, which I think is a pity.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on, and give credit to, the legacy that she has inherited from the last Government. The Overseas Development Administration was without compare in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency with which it delivered aid programmes around the world. The United Kingdom had a leading position in regard to debt relief, which was one of the key aspects of our attempt to relieve poverty in the

181
world, and both private and public sectors had a fine and honoured role in the net flow of donations to the developing world.
I believe that our donation of 1.38 per cent. of gross domestic product put us in second place. That was largely a product of the private sector, and of the fact that the UK is one of the largest overseas investors as a result of the openness of our economy and the success of our City institutions, which we must preserve. I hope that they will not be given too much of a hammering in tomorrow's Budget, so that their excellent internationalist approach can continue.
I welcome the review. It is exceptional, in that many policy reviews—for example, the strategic defence review—have been nothing more than a cover for the fact that, when the present Government were in opposition, they chose not to have a policy: organising a review on arriving in government obviated the need to be tied down too specifically.
This review is about the specific objective that the Secretary of State has set herself—to eradicate poverty—but I want to know how aid projects will be implemented in the wake of that policy, and how the ODA' s practices will be overturned over the next 18 months in pursuit of the Secretary of State's specific objective. I think that she is in danger of isolating her Department. She said today that her objectives would not be part of the day-to-day political or commercial objectives of the rest of the Government, and I consider that wrong, because it isolates her Department from the levers that can effectively deliver the policy objectives that we all share.
I find it irritating that, when we discuss these matters, the Secretary of State tries to say that the objective is so noble that it is beyond politics and above party political debate. The delivery of aid and the eradication of poverty—the objectives we share—are not above political debate; they are the very stuff of political debate. The controversy between the two sides of the House is based on the philosophical difference that both main parties bring to the attempt to achieve their objectives.
I do not like my motives being impugned. We share the objective of relieving poverty, but we differ in our philosophical approach. The only real difference between us is that the Conservatives' philosophical approach has worked, while the Labour Government were elected only once they had ditched the true elements of their old philosophy.
I am concerned about the Department's isolation, just as I am concerned about the political isolation of the Secretary of State and the Minister. In a sense, her arrival in charge of development policy in the Labour party was her exile from mainstream Labour politics.
In the most recent International Development Question Time, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development praised co-operatives. That was balanced by the right hon. Lady's failure to endorse free trade, and one began to get the feeling that perhaps the Department is the last outpost of old Labour.
It is important that, in delivering the noble objective which you have set yourselves, you do not do it in isolation either from your colleagues in the Government, from other policy areas, or, as you have said, from the international institutions that are so important in delivering these objectives.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not use the word "you". It refers to the Chair.
Mr. Blunt: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will forgive a new boy in only his second outing in the Chamber.
I think that the Secretary of State has accepted that she cannot implement the policies alone. She has said:
"The aid programme will always be important to our work, but it is not the only instrument we have, and probably not the most important. Everyone concerned about development must widen their horizon to include trade, debt, agricultural policy and so on."
To see the truth of that, we have only to look at the Marshall plan, which was the greatest development aid programme this century and the 50th anniversary of which is this year. Despite the enormous transfer of money from the United States to the devastated economies of Europe, it has been estimated that it added only 1 per cent. to the net GDP of European countries. In a sense, far more important was the plan's political and economic message about the confidence of the United States and that of others who had money to invest in Europe.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who spoke about a new consensus on the role of Governments. That role and the framework they produce in their countries are central to the eradication of poverty. That framework is crucial to the achievement of sustainable development, as is the rule of law, so that people know that they will be able to invest safely and that their property rights and the economic success of the citizens will not be taken through arbitrary Government actions. The success of Hong Kong is a good example of how the British framework has led to huge economic success.
The greatest threat to our shared objectives is political instability. It is regrettable that the new Department has divorced itself from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Political instability—in its worst form, war—will negate all the efforts of international development and hinder the eradication of poverty. The Secretary of State has said that poverty leads to war. It is certain that war leads to poverty.
Mr. Foulkes: I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman in his tracks, but he is developing his speech on the basis of the Department being isolated. I assure him that we are co-operating extremely closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—for example, recently, on Montserrat. We are also co-operating with other Departments, such as the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The important matter is that the International Development Department is separate and works coherently within Whitehall with other Departments. Therefore, the entire premise of the hon. Gentleman's speech is totally wrong.
Mr. Blunt: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. The messages sent by the Department since Labour came to office have shown precisely the opposite. There has been no endorsement of free trade or of the importance of world political stability, of the avoidance of war, of diplomacy, or of the armed forces, in sustaining a stable global environment that will enable the Government to deliver their objective of the eradication of poverty.
In examining her Department in the review, I hope that the right hon. Lady and her Under-Secretary of State will sustain the success that the Overseas Development

183
Administration has already delivered in programmes around the world. I hope that they will not turn those programmes upside down in the next 18 months by trying to get it to take direct action on the elimination of poverty. I trust that they will look at the whole operational environment, and will examine political, economic and commercial issues in delivering the objectives that we share.
8.34 pm
Ms Christine Russell: I am delighted to be called to make my maiden speech in this important debate. Over the past five hours, we have heard many moving and thought-provoking speeches, none more so than the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King).
I care passionately about international development, and I know from my postbag that it is dear to the hearts and minds of my constituents. I am sad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not in the Chamber. If she had been, I would have reminded her of her excellent visit to University college, Chester, some three months ago, when she joined me in bidding farewell to a group of students who were going to work on aid projects, half of them in South America and the other half in Africa.
Chester is a truly international city. We welcome over 6 million visitors a year. I think that the second most photographed clock in the world is the Eastgate clock, which is second only to Big Ben, and which celebrates its centenary this year. Wherever one treads in Chester, one steps on 2,000 years of history. Roman walls encircle the city. It has unique mediaeval rows, splendid black and white Tudor buildings and fine Georgian squares. However, Chester is no fossilised museum piece: it is a living, vibrant city, which cherishes its past but looks forward with confidence to its third millennium.
It is customary in maiden speeches to pay tribute to one's predecessors, but because of the late hour I shall be brief. The first Members of Parliament were elected in 1661, and up to 1886 the city returned two Members. I have looked through the annals in the record office, and noted that the name Grosvenor dominates that period. That is the family name of one of my better-known constituents, the Duke of Westminster. The duke is at present out of action, indisposed, and I should like to send him my best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Until 1 May, the people of Chester had only once returned a non-Conservative Member. He was the legendary Alfred Mond, who was one of the founders of ICI and represented the city as a Liberal Member from 1906 to 1910. Up to the election of my immediate predecessor, Gyles Brandreth, in 1992, the electorate of Chester had placed remarkable trust in their Members of Parliament, because the previous four had all been re-elected for five consecutive terms. However, two calendar months ago, the people of Chester democratically decided to write yet another chapter in the city's long history, by electing their first ever Labour Member, and their first woman Member.
As some hon. Members will know, Gyles Brandreth was a colourful Member of Parliament who tried hard to live down his woolly-jumper image. I am sure that he will be remembered in the history books for the Marriage Act
184
1994, which permitted couples to tie the knot in weird and wonderful locations, but he will also be remembered in Chester for his personal commitment to developing world issues. He was instrumental in establishing a world development group that encompassed the local branches of Oxfam, the United Nations Children's Fund, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, the UN Association, and many other organisations. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, his party in government did not show the same level of commitment to the overseas aid budget. During their tenure of office, the budget fell from 0.51 per cent. of GNP to a miserly 0.27 per cent.
Our new Government have made a superb start by putting international development at the heart of government. Not only here in Britain, but at the Denver summit and at the UN General Assembly special session on the environment and sustainable development, the Prime Minister has spelt out our determination to rescue the global environment for future generations.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development on achieving in eight weeks what the previous Government failed to achieve in 18 years—reaffirming our commitment to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, refocusing the aid budget on assistance to the poorest people in the poorest countries, rejoining UNESCO, and redoubling Britain's commitment to eliminate global poverty and inequality.
Two years ago, I attended my daughter's graduation ceremony at Sussex university. There I listened to an impassioned plea by Charles Wheeler, the renowned BBC foreign correspondent, for the funding of places for overseas students. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Sussex university built a fine reputation for allocating 10 per cent. of its places to overseas students. I believe that more than half of Nelson Mandela's Cabinet were educated at the university, but, by 1994. Sussex, in common with other academic institutions, was struggling financially to support overseas students who were unable to meet the full costs of their tuition fees.
We all recognise, and many hon. Members have said, that improvements to health, education and sanitation are the keys to tackling poverty and its causes in developing countries, but grant aid alone is not enough. Developing countries need trained doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists—and, yes, politicians who are committed to democratic systems of government.
Our new Government have education as their number one priority, and have pledged to improve Britain's standing and influence in the wider world. What better way is there in which to marry those twin goals than again to encourage and support our colleges and universities to open their doors to students from developing countries, particularly those in Africa and the Indian sub-continent? Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will take a fresh look at what educational opportunities Britain can offer to students from poorer countries.
On behalf of my constituents—there are many of them—who work tirelessly for the people of the world who live in abject poverty, may I say that we are absolutely delighted by the wind of change that has blown through the corridors of Whitehall in the past eight weeks. We look forward with eager anticipation to the autumn and the first White Paper on international development for 22 years.
8.44 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: May I, also still a new boy, congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) on a fluent, warm and kind maiden speech. I share her views entirely about British education and about expanding places at our universities. Despite the risk that people may stay here and work, most go back to their countries and make a valuable contribution.
I echo the tribute that has been paid by others to Baroness Chalker, who even Labour Members would agree did the best that she could with the resources available to her. On the subject of resources, one point has been missed, however: the growing contribution from the voluntary sector. I am involved in the same charitable operation in New Delhi to which my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred. The fact that there is effectively a tax break for individual charitable contributions has been a tremendous benefit and has increased the flow of individual giving. In many areas, that can provide the best value and the most focused help.
I should like, however, to speak about the other side of the coin. This is a debate about international development policies, not just aid. I agree that it is time for a review of aid policy. Much has happened in the past 15 years, but the private sector is crucial in relation to international development and we need to understand why some emerging economies have been so successful and others less successful, and to understand the interaction of the private sector with the Government sector.
Let us start with the crude flows of money. I think that the total global flows of aid come to about £55 billion. The flows of private capital total about £230 billion per annum: more than four times as many resources flow, one way or another, into developing economies from the private sector. One needs to think about why they flow. Why has China done so particularly well? Why have some countries in South America done so well and what are the lessons to be learnt? China still has a totalitarian and one-state Government, but they have committed themselves to essentially capitalist reforms and to bringing in the rule of law and Anglo-Saxon style market practices—an alien climate for China.
The World bank has recently issued an important report from an analysis of some 133 developing countries. It pointed to some key factors. It said that, unless there is an effective Government, a legal foundation, effective macro-economic policy and adequate investment in infrastructure, in essence, an operative Government, not only will the private sector not go into that country, but aid will not be effective. The report pointed to some of the failures recently in Bangladesh, which has added 500,000 people to its civil service and increased its ministries from 21 to 35, with disastrous results. It has become almost impossible to implement policies. Therefore, whether it is private or state sector, countries need an effective state.
The report also said that, if countries want capital flows, they have to have policies that will attract them. There is no point having exchange controls, excessive taxation on dividends or a wholly dominant nationalised sector. Countries have to have an open market economy. The particular success of China can be related to the harnessing of its diaspora. There are many other countries throughout the world where that can be a key element in success.
186
I had the privilege to work in India as part of my career and remain closely associated with it. It is Asia's second giant, having 970 million people. It is a country with which Britain will continue to have particularly close relations for historic and cultural reasons. It will be Britain's key emerging economy partner in the next 50 years.
Until 1991, India had a poor record. Its growth was 2 per cent. Few will remember that, in 1948, its export record was better than that of Japan. In fact, its economy was larger than that of Japan. Contrast the two over the period that followed and there is much to be learnt. India put in protection and fell behind technologically. It nationalised much of its productive sector and became corrupt and inefficient. It put up barriers to foreign investment, controlled prices, controlled credit and put in exchange control. Eventually, it came close to becoming a client of Russia.
It was the collapse of Russia that led to the opening up of India in 1991, but previously, in the name of helping the poor, those policies produced growth of some 2 per cent. per annum in comparison to the 9 per cent. per annum that China has achieved for the past 20 years. We know that there was a major change in 1991. I pay particular tribute to India's Finance Minister, who had the bravery to implement those changes.
There is still much to do, but India has become an open market economy. Foreign capital flows have risen, but my appeal is for more. Interestingly, India receives some US$6 billion in aggregate aid. Its free market capital flows are of the order of US$8 billion to US$10 billion, against nearly US$100 billion that goes to China. It is my hope that British businesses, utilities and the many British companies that have been associated with India will take up the challenge that is there. India needs US$250 billion of infrastructure investment in the next decade. It will not be able to finance this from its own resources. It will not be able to finance this from aid projects. It needs to finance it on the international markets, with the help and collaboration of western businesses.
I am often amused when I look at a business like Unilever, which we all associate with being a European business and which is focused on its businesses in continental Europe. Yet Unilever has in India a most successful company. I forecast that, within 20 years, it will become a greater part of the Unilever empire than the whole of Europe put together. My message for British business is that I believe that the time is right for India. There is a massive opportunity over the next 50 years. Let us see the commercial sector do in India what it has done in China, and let Britain play a major role in that.
8.53 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on international aid and development. Not only do I have a keen interest in development issues, but it is an area about which many of my constituents in South Swindon express their concern. I particularly welcome the work of groups in South Swindon such as the World Development Movement, the Real World Coalition and the Church Social Responsibility Group, to name just a few. Their contribution is very much appreciated. Swindon is twinned with Ocotal in Nicaragua—a relationship that is of great benefit to both communities. I pay tribute to all those groups and initiatives.

187
We live in a world of growing inequality, both within and between countries. The threats that we all face from environmental degradation and the uncontrolled spread of weapons and new diseases affect the poor far more than they do the rich. The poorest countries in the world are facing greater hurdles than ever before. As economic competition in the rest of the world intensifies, it leaves those at the bottom end increasingly marginalised and isolated. The Labour party recognises that trend and wishes to reverse it, to reverse the increase in the polarities of wealth and to give prominence to development issues. I am proud to be part of the Labour party.
I should like to recommend four priorities for the new International Development Department—reducing the debts of the poorest nations, making enterprise work and not hindering the poor, the quality of aid and the quantity of aid. Other hon. Members have made the main points on reducing the debts of the poorest nations. On the recently agreed heavily indebted poor countries initiative, we need to do all that we can to push the IMF and the World bank to take swift action to simplify and to speed up the proposals, to relieve the strains on the poorest nations. Failure to do so will result in a loss of credibility with Governments. Countries that are implementing their part of the deals should be rewarded with action and not with a move of the goalposts.
My second point covers enterprise and investment flows to developing countries. I argue that foreign investment in developing countries should not always be welcomed. We should encourage enterprise to improve conditions for the poorest people and discourage it when it further disadvantages them. The previous Government encouraged free market enterprise in developing countries, but it often led to adjustment programmes which cut vital, basic services. The adjustment programmes sometimes led to the growth of a middle class and a boom in consumer spending for it, but the poorer classes felt a loss of security in jobs and in basic service provision. The lessons from these countries' experience must be learnt for the future. Enterprise must help and not hinder the poorest people.
We are about to make further problems for the poorest people in the poorest countries. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—I shall call it the industrialised countries—is currently negotiating a multilateral agreement on investment, which I shall call the investment agreement, to be signed in May 1998. The pressure for developing countries to join the investment agreement, despite being excluded from its negotiations, will be intense.
The investment agreement is aimed at protecting the rights of foreign investors and removing restrictions to the free movement of investment capital around the world. Multinationals would remain free to act in their own interests without obligations to observe any form of minimum standards of public welfare, the environment or fair business practices.
The idea of free markets sounds great. We all like the idea of freedom, but unfettered free markets enable those with power, richer countries, richer companies and richer individuals, to gain for themselves more power and more wealth at the expense of those in the poorer bracket who
188
have less influence. The investment agreement promotes liberalisation as an end in itself instead of giving priority to combating poverty and protecting the environment, workers, consumers, indigenous cultures and vulnerable groups in society. Therefore, negotiations on the investment agreement should stop. The talks should then be restarted with representatives not only of industrialised but of developing countries—so that together we can agree on the rights and, more importantly, the responsibilities of multinationals.
The third matter that I should like to deal with is the quality of aid. Our aid must be focused on the poorest countries and on the poorest people within those countries. In recent years, that approach has been adopted by the Government. In 1995, almost 70 per cent. of bilateral aid was provided to the poorest countries. Further progress, however, is necessary, and I hope that no hon. Member is satisfied with the current percentage. We should aim for at least 80 per cent. if not more of our aid to be provided to the poorest countries.
I look forward to the White Paper on international development. Primary legislation could help to establish appropriate boundaries in the acceptable use of aid funds. Links between aid spending and arms exports have been established and the Pergau dam case demonstrated inappropriate use of aid. My constituents would not support aid being used for such purposes.
I understand the logic of links between aid and other British contracts, as envisaged by the aid and trade provision. Co-operation, by which British companies get work on overseas contracts to help poor countries, sounds fine in principle, but history has shown that such tied aid does not work. Tied aid warps priorities, to the detriment of the poor. Let us therefore free our aid budgets from those ties and transfer the aid and trade provision budget to programmes for the poorest people in the world.
Although some British exporters will object to that proposal, others believe that the interests of British business are served best by promoting fair international competition and not by hidden aid subsidies that distort the economy and waste taxpayers' funds.
I am sure that Labour will focus assistance where it is most needed and where it will reap the most benefit—in those countries that attack poverty and respect the principles of human rights and good government. The impact of our aid projects on the environment and on women and children as well as men should always be considered.
Finally, I should like to deal with the matter of the quantity of aid. Spending plans for the last financial year, under a Conservative Government, included the first cash cut in the aid budget for more than 20 years and show the mess that the previous Government made of the United Kingdom's finances. The poorest in the world suffered because of the Tories' economic mismanagement. The current Government have inherited those plans, which envisage a cut in aid of more than 10 per cent. by 1999–2000. We must change those plans.
Earlier in the debate, I heard Conservative Members trying to sing the praises of their aid record by counting not only public funds but private investment. I have already said that private investment is not always good. I will therefore ask them not to hide under the cloak of inappropriate other figures, because there is a real human cost to aid budget cuts.

189
I know how important it was to my mother that her children did not go to sleep hungry at night. She succeeded in preventing that, but it saddens her as much as it saddens me that, around the globe, 800,000 mothers cannot do the same. With political will and political action, we can change much in the current situation. We need plans, over two terms of a Labour Government, to achieve the UN aid target of 0.7 per cent. of national income. I am pleased that Labour is committed to increasing aid levels to the poorest countries and to reversing the downward aid trend of the previous Administration.
There is considerable support in my constituency for overseas aid, although some people tell me that charity begins at home. It is true that there are many poverty-related problems in the United Kingdom, and that health and education require more investment. I am confident that, during the term of the Labour Government, we will find more funds for them. However, Britain has international obligations also.
I want Britain to lead the world in co-operation with other countries, and it is in our long-term interest to help poorer countries. If their economic fortunes improve, there will be more markets for our products. If those countries develop with greater foresight in environmental issues, we can safeguard our planet for the enjoyment of all, rather than choking together in the fumes of world wide industrialisation.
In asking for us to plan to hit the UN aid target of 0.7 per cent. of national income, I urge that particular attention be paid to development education in the United Kingdom. Such education is not only needed so that our citizens know what the Government are doing with their money, but it could provide huge joy and opportunities to UK citizens as they learn about development issues domestically and abroad.
I am optimistic about the future of international development under the new Labour Government. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to ensure that our Government, first, help to reduce the debts of the poorest countries; secondly, allow enterprise to work to help the poorest in the world, and stop it where it is working to the detriment of poor people; thirdly, concentrate our aid on the poorest people in the poorest countries, which means stopping tied aid; and, finally, plan now to increase the quantity of aid that we provide—so that, by the second term of a Labour Government, we can proudly hit the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of national income spent on aid.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Many hon. Members have been in the Chamber throughout the debate. If hon. Members will keep their speeches brief, I may be able to call on another one or two hon. Members to speak.
9.3 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: This has been an outstanding debate. I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development on both her speech and her appointment. I congratulate also our shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad).
The tradition of British involvement in overseas aid is legendary. I join hon. Members who have paid tribute to Baroness Chalker, whose work in overseas
190
development—especially the extensive policy review that she conducted while in government—is recognised around the world. I also draw the House's attention to the work of Lord Plumb, who as co-chairman of the joint European Union and African, Caribbean and Pacific assembly has a special role to play in overseas development policy.
I should like to put straight the British record under the previous Conservative Government. In cash terms—I do not think that the Secretary of State for International Development would disagree with this inheritance—we are the sixth largest donor in the world. In gross domestic product terms, we are the second largest donor after the Netherlands. At a time when aid budgets are being cut in Italy by 36 per cent. and in Canada by more than 20 per cent., it is important that it is recognised that the Conservative target of halving the numbers of those living in poverty by 2015 has been adopted by the Labour Government. I welcome that.
Britain's bilateral aid programme targets poverty, as the Secretary of State emphasised. Can the Secretary of State confirm today that the White Paper will recommend increasing levels of bilateral aid to achieve that target?
Britain contributes substantially through multilateral aid, and particularly through the European Union. The EU provided 46 per cent. of all official development assistance received by developing countries in 1994, the last year for which figures are available. I welcome the decision to rejoin UNESCO, but the annual cost will be an initial £5 million, rising to £12 million. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance today that UK bilateral assistance will not be reduced to meet those international commitments?
Aid is given to central and eastern Europe and to the former Soviet Union. It is important that we recognise the role within western Europe of our trading partners in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. We must recognise also that those countries are applicants to the European Union. Substantial aid is being provided from two sources. Both technical assistance and market reforms go through the UK know-how fund and the PHARE and TACIS—Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States—programmes, which are administered by the EU. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that PHARE stands for Poland and Hungary Assistance for the Restructuring of the Economy.
Substantial economic aid of this nature enables central and eastern European countries to make the difficult transition from centrally planned to market-oriented economies. The aid provides economic stability and increases the standard of living of the countries that receive it. It gives British firms opportunities to find new markets for their goods and services.
The role of the African, Caribbean and Pacific joint assembly with the EU, especially through the Lomé convention—it has been explained already that the convention is due to expire and be renewed in 2000—is promoting the economies of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. I believe that the emphasis must be placed on investment in people and the creation of business. Investment in education and training is the key to the future economic development of the countries that are receiving aid.

191
Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that it is not for us in the developed world to dictate how moneys should be used? Investment decisions must be taken on the basis of mutual agreement. There must be transparency in investment and we must do all that we can to stamp out corruption in every form.
Corporate and international development should be about economic and social development. It should also be about stability, tolerance and conflict avoidance. I believe that the Secretary of State referred to a 40 per cent. contribution by the UK through the EU and 15 per cent. through the World bank. Given the considerable sum donated by the UK through the EU, it should be recognised that the EU, with that UK backing, has a dominant role to play in assisting developing countries.
Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss McIntosh: I fear not, because of the lateness of the hour. Perhaps I shall be able to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene on another occasion.
In the White Paper, will the Secretary of State elaborate on Britain's role, with Europe, in assisting developing countries, particularly through the Lomé convention and through PHARE, TACIS and other central and eastern European aid programmes such as the know-how fund, and on how to ensure that those programmes are expanded?
The Secretary of State mentioned the banana question. It is a problem not of straight or curved bananas, but of bananas from the Caribbean or from Europe. As well as talking about pesticides, I hope that the Secretary of State will address the burning issue of the preference of European and British housewives for smaller rather than larger bananas. Perhaps we can explore how to solve that problem in the future.
Much has been said in the debate about more trade and less aid. I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that trade brings in three times as much for developing countries as official aid and is a vital engine for economic development and growth. I hope that she will also undertake to eradicate corruption in the implementation of aid policy at every level.
Britain's international development policy must consist of a balance of measures to promote the best interests of developing nations. We must continue our role in multilateral aid, but not at the expense of bilateral aid. I hope, too, that Britain's international development policy will be grounded in economic reality, firmly recognising the benefits of free trade and the opportunities for Britain's private enterprise in helping to regenerate the third world in the context of a truly free market in the provision of goods and services in developing countries.
The Secretary of State has a wonderful opportunity in the White Paper to elaborate on our role in achieving those aims through the European Union. I hope that she will take that opportunity.
9.11 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I join all the previous speakers in welcoming the Secretary of State and her Minister to their new posts. They have a mammoth task, but I have no doubt that they will succeed. They have our warmest wishes.
Tomorrow the Chancellor presents his Budget. I hope that, just this once, he will forget that he is the puritanical son of a manse and announce an increase in the aid budget. That would be true to new Labour and, perhaps even more importantly, true to the memory of the late John Smith, who was very much old Labour, but whose credentials on overseas aid were second to none. He determined that within a five-year Parliament the United Nations target would be met. I hope that we shall reach that target of increasing aid from 0.27 per cent. of gross domestic product to 0.7 per cent. within five years.
I should like a greater proportion of the United Kingdom aid budget to be devoted to women's reproductive health issues, the importance of which in reducing poverty in less developed countries can hardly be overstated. I understand that the Department of International Development would like to devote 4 per cent. of the aid budget to reproductive health services. Only 3 per cent. of the budget is currently spent on that—about £70 million a year. Over five years, we should be aiming for 4 per cent. of 0.7 per cent. of GDP devoted to reproductive health services rather than the present 3 per cent. of 0.27 per cent. of GDP. If the Department adhered to that, and if the Chancellor adhered to John Smith's dreams, the amount per annum going to women's reproductive health services would rise over five years from £70 million to £200 million.
More resources should be devoted to adolescents in less developed countries. Resources and projects need to be concentrated on understanding adolescent sexuality. After all, 20 per cent. of the world's population are aged between 10 and 19. In 1995, of the world's 1.6 billion adolescents, 913 million came from the less developed countries. In those countries, some 45 per cent. of the population are under 25 years old. We need to be sensitive to their needs. Adolescents want information, education and services. I am pleased that that is an area in which the international charity, Population Concern, does considerable work of a very high quality in some of the less developed countries, with the aid of the Department of International Development. Nevertheless, both it and other non-governmental organisations could do more.
The current problem with overseas projects that target adolescents can be summed up in one word: sustainability. The current theory of the Department is that, once those projects have been running for three years, they must be able to sustain themselves—that is to say, finance themselves. This theory, which I will call the Adam Smith-von Hayek-Thatcherite theory, is in itself unsustainable.
Many such projects will never be able to finance themselves after three years. Adolescents the world over do not think or act as the Department would have us believe. Adolescents in less developed countries quite simply do not have personal budgets for reproductive health services. Indeed, I very much doubt that adolescents in this country have personal budgets for reproductive health services. I invite the Department to get real and come down to earth. We have to start talking about subsidies rather than sustainability in this area.

193
When seeking to help adolescents, the Department will have to confront more directly the issue of abortion, which has had some publicity recently. What Marie Stopes offers adolescents in the United Kingdom today—quick, safe abortions in a comfortable environment—the Department ought to encourage others to offer adolescents in less developed countries tomorrow. In such countries, women have a right to abortions without pain, without shame, without guilt and without unnecessary psychological stress.
Baroness Chalker—I pay tribute to her, as have many Conservative Members—is to be congratulated on taking on the Vatican on abortion at a number of international conferences, but truth to tell, perhaps for very understandable reasons, she did skirt around the issue. I agree with her that abortion is not a method of contraception, but that phrase can be used as a cop-out for Governments.
On the issue of sexual and reproductive health rights, the notion of rights is not much used by the new Labour puritans, who talk instead of duties and responsibilities. In my view, however, the Department of International Development should be thinking in terms of the concept of sexual and reproductive rights and putting them at the centre of its White Paper. As one of my hon. Friends said, the International Planned Parent Federation is to be congratulated on drawing up a charter of rights in this area.
I should like to mention just two rights which I believe are extremely important. First, there is the right to liberty and security of the person, which recognises that all people must be free to enjoy and control their sexual and reproductive lives and that no person should be subject to forced pregnancy, sterilisation or abortion. The second is the right to privacy, meaning that all sexual and reproductive health care services should be confidential and that all women should have the right to autonomous reproductive choices.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) kept talking about population control, and I kept freaking out every time he did so. We should be talking about population concern and giving people choices after they have received information, education and the provision of the services that they need. Then they can make their own choices about their fertility in an adult way.
At the Commonwealth Institute on 27 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State observed presciently that
"women are the transformers of poverty".
Yet 70 per cent. of the 1.3 billion people living in poverty on the planet are female. It is a tragedy for them as well as a huge drag on the progress of mankind and the progress of womankind. I wish my right hon. Friend well in her mission to empower women so that they can revolutionise the world. That, I am sure, will be the most important revolution that we are likely to see in the next century.
9.19 pm
Barbara Follett: Development and development issues have played a central role in my life and in the lives of many of my constituents. I am therefore delighted that the Secretary of State is taking those issues so seriously. I especially welcome her remarks on the role
194
of women in development. Her commitment to the education of women and girls in developing countries will be a key factor in the fight against poverty. Women are pivotal in that fight because they are mainly responsible for the rearing and nurturing of future generations. Their education—or lack of it—is crucial to their children's mental and physical well-being.
Numerous studies have shown that a mother's education has a positive effect not only on her children's schooling but on their health. The studies also show that educated women tend to have fewer children than uneducated women. The beneficial effects of educating women are proven, which makes even more alarming the fact that 600 million of the world's 900 million illiterate adults are female. The problem is not confined to adults. Nearly two thirds of the 143 million children who are currently unable to attend primary school in the developing world are female. Unless we do something about educating them soon, we shall not reduce poverty—let alone eradicate it—for generations to come.
Education is only one weapon among many, but it is one of the most important. Without it, no amount of aid or trade can make a lasting difference. That fact was forcefully brought home to me 25 years ago in South Africa. I was working in a hospital in one of the barren and deserted homelands to which the old and very young women were exiled. I was a wet-behind-the-ears health worker, employed by a large charity dedicated to combating malnutrition. A woman in her late 60s came to see me because, she said, the milk that the charity had provided had killed her grandson. She took me to see his body. Her grief was terrible and dignified. It took me a while to piece together her story, but it came down to the fact that she could not read the instructions on the packet of milk and had unwittingly and lovingly starved him to death. I have never forgotten that little boy's death, although it was one among thousands and one among the hundreds that I personally witnessed in those years in South Africa.
At that time, the infant mortality rate for black children in rural areas was more than 50 per cent. In other words, half of the children born died before their first birthday. That was at a time when the South African Government were throwing millions of gallons of milk into the sea at Table bay every day to keep the price up. Half a pint of that milk each every day would have saved most of those children's lives.
That elderly, illiterate woman taught me a lesson, and I learned much more in the next few years about the appalling cluster of social, economic and political problems that caused the deaths of those thousands of children. I learned that young mothers breastfed for only a few weeks because they had to go back to the towns where the work was. I learned how difficult it was for the babies' grandmothers to find the money to buy feeding bottles. I learned how incredibly difficult it was for them to pay for the formula and how they watered it down to make it last longer. I learned about their back-breaking work scouring the countryside for wood to warm the water and, finally, how impossible it was to find clean water. If the women found water, it often needed boiling and without the wood to do so it was impossible to produce clean formula. That is how the infant mortality rate came to be more than 50 per cent.

195
The lives of those elderly women were appalling, but their courage was heroic. The iniquitous system of apartheid, which was at the root of those women's problems, has now been swept away, but the problems that apartheid created remain in Africa—and there are similar problems in the rest of the world. It is estimated that in rural Africa children and women spend up to 40 billion hours each year fetching and carrying water, and another few billion hours fetching and carrying fuel. It is not surprising that millions of children die each year from water-related diseases.
For those reasons I—and the people of Stevenage, which is twinned with a town called Kadoma in Zimbabwe—welcome the £120 million that the British Government have set aside for basic health services, primary education and the provision of clean water in sub-Saharan Africa.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that women and children are at the heart of Britain's development strategy. Our international development programme will be greatly strengthened by her presence. She is a woman who does what she says, whereas I am afraid that, despite the assurances of Opposition Members, for the past 18 years Britain's development programme has been mainly a matter of talking rather then doing. Deeds, not words, are needed now, and I know that my right hon. Friend will not let us down.
9.25 pm
Mr. Vernon Coaker: I shall make a very short contribution to an interesting debate, from which I am sure we have all learnt a lot. I could repeat many of the points that have been made—for instance, about the need for women and children to be at the centre of our development policies, and about the need for debt rescheduling and control of the arms trade.
There is one particular item to which I want to draw attention, however, because it must form an important part of the White Paper. That is the need for development education in our schools. It is an especially important subject, and if schools were to take it on board and if they were supported in so doing, it would help us to develop the sort of anti-racist attitudes and proactive approach to development that we want to see and would also help us to deal with many of the issues that face us.
Some development education takes place in schools already. As we know, however, schools are under great pressure and development education is one of the subjects that it is difficult for teachers to persuade pupils to take as seriously as they may take other subjects. Listening to the debate, we realise that the subject is one of the most important that children could learn about. Yet often, faced with competition from lessons such as mathematics, English, French and science, such important issues, discussions and aspects of education are squeezed out.
I urge the Minister to put development education into the White Paper as a priority. Schools should not simply be left to float in that respect, but should be supported in the delivery of the subject, because it will help us to encourage the sort of attitudes that we want to see in the young people of the future.
9.27 pm
Mr. David Faber: As I am about to make a maiden speech of my own, of sorts, I add my warm congratulations to the three hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) spoke warmly about Jim Lester—and rightly so, for Jim campaigned tirelessly in the House both on the aid budget and on many other issues. The hon. Gentleman spoke thoughtfully and with great poise, and I am sure that we shall hear a lot more of him in the months and years to come.
I echo the congratulations already offered to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). She spoke passionately, she held the House, and at the same time she amused us all. Again, I am sure that we shall hear a lot more from her. Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell). Gyles Brandreth, who is one of my closest friends, was one of my best friends in the House, so I am grateful for the warm words that the hon. Lady spoke about him. Her style, I am sure she will forgive me for saying, is somewhat different from his. He managed in the end to do away with the image of the woolly sweaters, but anyone who heard his speech seconding the Gracious Address last year would know that he is a hard act to follow. We look forward to hearing more from all three hon. Members in due course.
I echo the warm and fitting tributes paid by several hon. Members to my noble Friend Baroness Chalker, and especially that of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who had first-hand experience of seeing her at work in the field. For 11 years, Lynda Chalker was Minister for Overseas Development; she worked tirelessly to alleviate poverty and promote good government throughout the world, and I was privileged to work as her parliamentary private secretary for more than a year and to witness at first hand the respect that she inspired in officials, charity workers and Ministers from other countries.
I hope that the Government will continue to support the clear principles that my noble Friend established in office: more trade, better government and less debt. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) would strongly endorse my views.
I have sat through most debates on overseas aid during the five years that I have spent in the House, and tonight's debate has been no exception to the rule: it has been truly excellent, and has shown that on this issue there can be clear areas of agreement between the Government and the Opposition.
I am only sorry that once or twice Labour Members have shown a trace of the arrogance that we have come to expect from new Labour from time to time. All too readily, they have attacked the previous Government's record in the most party political way possible, yet whenever Opposition Members have tried to raise issues of genuine disagreement they have been accused of party politicking. The subject should be above party politics and I hope that we can ensure that that happens in future debates.
I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on their appointments. Our loss on the third floor in Millbank is undoubtedly the new Department's gain. Others have spoken of the passion that the Secretary of State brings to the job; from my time with Lady Chalker,

197
I understand her description of her task as a noble one, and I am sure that the right hon. Lady will see it through with dedication.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will listen to hon. Members of all parties. In a written answer to a parliamentary question she said that, in today's debate, hon. Members would
"have an opportunity to feed their thoughts and ideas into the Paper."—[Official Report, 24 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 464.]
I hope that, on reflection, she will reconsider her expression of irritation at a perfectly valid intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), albeit one with which she disagreed. I hope that there is room for all hon. Members to express a view.
Clare Short: I am open to any views and I respect people who disagree with me, but it was clear from his intervention that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) had not listened to my speech, and that was irritating. He was telling me that I had not said things that were clearly there and on the record.
Mr. Faber: I thank the Secretary of State. We will leave the matter there.
In a typically informed speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) made a passionate defence of free trade; it is the surest way to help the poorest countries to develop and prosper. Trade brings in three times more money than aid alone and it is therefore essential that the United Kingdom continues to play a leading role in international efforts to bring down trade barriers.
There is no doubt that, in recent decades, tariffs have decreased and trade has increased accordingly, bringing prosperity to many developing countries; but other forms of protectionism have increased, even in supposed free trade zones such as the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement area. If we are genuinely to help less well-off countries to develop, we must continue vigorously to resist protectionist moves by other Governments to shield their national industries from foreign competition. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is the Government's intention to achieve free trade by 2020.
There is a moral argument for being involved in the international development effort, but it also serves our own interests. The quality of that aid is as important as the quantity. Aid given to the wrong regimes can simply be a way of transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. It should therefore be focused on countries with a genuine commitment to democracy and to market economics; indeed, the two are closely linked.
The prospects for economic reform and for development more generally will always be poor if Governments do not meet basic standards of popular consent, accountability and competence. I hope that the Minister will confirm that we need to create an enabling climate that promotes a partnership between the Governments of the donor countries and those of the developing countries that they are seeking to help.
The importance of the voluntary sector has been stressed this evening. Non-governmental organisations can often deliver aid more effectively, efficiently and imaginatively than Government institutions. They give
198
the taxpayer good value for money and are less likely to use the resources given to them for other purposes. We have heard tributes to many such organisations today, and I should like to mention one to which the Under-Secretary drew attention last week—the Grameen bank in Bangladesh, which specialises in providing small loans to women. As he pointed out last week, the loans are, by and large, repaid. The work of the bank, and other similar organisations, is invaluable. I know a great deal about it from the strong support given to such organisations by local aid groups in my constituency.
Many of the people who run such organisations are volunteers and have a high level of commitment and excellent local knowledge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) described. I hope that the Government will give them the help and support they deserve.
We have heard a lot from Labour Members about the record of the previous Government on overseas aid. Let us be clear—I believe that we have a record of which we can be rightly and justifiably proud. Britain gives generously to support overseas development. In 1996–97, we were the sixth largest donor in the world, with an overseas aid budget of £2.2 billion. The United Kingdom spent 0.27 per cent. of its gross domestic product on Government aid, above the average of 0.25 per cent. for aid-giving countries. When that is added to private sector money, the United Kingdom's record is even more impressive—1.38 per cent. of gross national product. We spend more as a percentage of GDP on private and public development aid than any country bar the Netherlands. What is more, the quality of aid is universally reckoned to be high, as has been recognised by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports.
Labour Members have made much of their party's commitment to meeting the target set by the UN that developed countries should spend 0.7 per cent. of GDP on overseas aid. Can the Under-Secretary tell us the timetable that the Government have set for that? In a debate last year in which I took part, Labour motion's pledged to make "steady and sustainable progress" towards that target, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) said, that commitment seems to have vanished. As recently as 1992, Labour's election manifesto pledged to achieve the target within five years. Why are the Government now refusing to set a timetable?
It has been argued by one or two hon. Members that debt owed by third-world countries should be written off. We believe such a policy to be misguided. It would not encourage those countries to adopt sensible or sustainable economic policies or convince them of the need to push through market reforms. It would send the wrong message to a number of countries with abysmal human rights records, and could cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. It is for those reasons that we do not support the Jubilee 2000 initiative—well intentioned though it is.
The solution to the problem of third-world debt is twofold. First, we need international action to help countries service and reduce their debt. In office, we cancelled £1 billion of debt owed by the poorest countries. That was the single biggest contribution to resolving the debt crisis. In December last year,

199
Britain pledged up to £250 million to help some of Africa's poorest and most indebted countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) put this issue at the top of the international agenda when he set out the Trinidad terms in 1990—as the Secretary of State generously acknowledged.
Secondly, we need action by the countries themselves to ensure that they live within their means. That is why we have devoted great energy to improving the quality of public spending programmes in poor countries. Over time, that will raise the quality of services provided by those countries to poorer people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) spoke of the need for fiscal rectitude—low taxation, low inflation and tightly controlled Government spending—to create the right conditions for economic growth. These are the policies that the IMF has done much to promote and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said, the Secretary of State has been quick to attack. The policies have brought prosperity to the developed world and will bring prosperity to the developing world.
The Government have made much of their review of the Department of International Development, but it is difficult to see what will be reviewed, given the fact that—as we have heard from several hon. Members this evening—such a review was carried out three years ago. Where will the review of defence spending leave our emergency aid operations? Britain's armed forces have contributed to disaster relief operations around the world. They have saved thousands of lives. I can do no better than to add nothing to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). As he reminded us, at this very moment HMS Liverpool is helping to deal with the problems in Montserrat.
Yesterday, I asked the Minister whether he would give a commitment that the Government will maintain the West Indies guard ship after the defence review. Can he at least pledge today to make forceful representations on that to the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who speaks with great knowledge and experience of the matter, described the aid that we have given in the past. I hope that the aid that the previous Government gave to Montserrat will be adequately recognised, as we recognise the aid that the present Government are giving. We will continue to support the Government in bringing relief to that stricken island.
We have heard a good deal about the Government rejoining UNESCO, at a cost of £5 million this year, rising to some £12 million or £15 million in three years. The previous Government left UNESCO because it was becoming increasingly politicised and its spending was spiralling out of control. I accept that there have been improvements since then, but I echo the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). UNESCO's finances are still in disarray; it overspends by $80 million a year. What guarantees have the Government asked for and received from UNESCO that the extra money provided by British taxpayers will be spent on worthwhile projects rather than administrative costs?
200
In the past few weeks, we have heard quite a bit from Labour about its new moral foreign policy. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) described human rights as a central plank of Government policy. It is not the first time we have heard moral mission statements from Labour Members, or from the Secretary of State. To give her credit, she has always taken a consistent moral line, although some of us have not always agreed with it. However, the Foreign Secretary's mission statement sits a little uneasily with some of her past causes. She has in the past espoused the cause of North Korea and given her support to communist Cuba. I believe that she has even signed an early-day motion calling for the complete rehabilitation of Leon Trotsky. That would be a difficult task, even for the NHS under new Labour. She is in good company.
Clare Short: I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman. There are many things that are true about which he might attack me, but not those that he mentioned, although I accept that we should get developments in Cuba. I have never been a Trotskyist.
Mr. Faber: I will send the right hon. Lady a copy of the early-day motion. She is in good company because, on the great moral issue of the past 40 years—standing up to communism in eastern Europe, the cause of so much desperate deprivation in our continent—Labour Members have been wrong all too often. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain exactly how the Government's new approach will affect our relations with other countries.
Will countries with poor human rights records be blacklisted? How would such a list be decided? Which countries does the Minister have in mind? Will British companies and aid organisations be banned from those countries? How precisely do the Government intend to define the human rights violations that would lead to trade sanctions, and perhaps more important, to withdrawal of aid?
We have made it clear that, when the Government act in the national interest, we will support them. I believe that British overseas aid has been efficiently managed over the years. Our aid operation is widely respected around the world, not least because of the efforts of my noble Friend Baroness Chalker in her 11 years as the Minister responsible for such matters. I hope that the Government continue to pursue the policies that we put in place, and support projects that promote sound political and economic policies, provide improved health and family planning services and encourage sustainable economic development. If they do, I assure them that they will have our continued support.
9.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): This has been an excellent and well-informed debate. It is unique because it is the first full-day debate on international development in Government time in living memory. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on his witty, thoughtful speech and on his generous tribute to Sir James Lester, with which I concur. I congratulate my hon. Friend

201
the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on her eloquent and well-informed contribution, and on already having become honorary secretary of the all-party group on international development. Lastly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) on her warm and constructive speech. Taken together, the three speeches are testimony to the quality of the new talent on the Government Benches.
The debate has illustrated well the real concern of the House about international development, which it has often not been able to express. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the debate has provided hon. Members with a unique opportunity to contribute to the White Paper at this early stage. Normally, as I can tell my new hon. Friends, debates such as this follow the publication of a White Paper, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) rightly said. We felt it not only right but essential, when we were asking academics, non-governmental organisations, ambassadors and high commissioners to contribute their thoughts, to give hon. Members the opportunity to contribute.
Some Tory Members, especially those who spoke from the Front Bench, seemed to think that there was something wrong with having a review. I must say it was nice to get the support of the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who perhaps know a little more about the subject. The fact that they supported the review shows that the Opposition are already divided—something that we shall of course do our best to encourage. Surely a White Paper is essential for a new Government coming into office after 18 years, to chart the direction in which we are moving. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. If those who have not been able to participate, for whatever reason, submit their views in writing, all of them will be taken into account when we draft the White Paper, which we expect to publish in the autumn.
Meanwhile, I shall respond to some of the more immediate and urgent points raised in the debate and draw some of the threads together. Several hon. Members raised the debt problem. That is understandable. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) rightly said that debt reduced the opportunities for developing countries. It cripples many developing countries, especially in Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), in a constructive and eloquent speech, called for Her Majesty's Government to take a lead.
We accept that the debt burden borne by developing countries is a matter of concern not just in the House but among the public. That is why my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development have been pressing the international community to provide further debt relief. We welcome the support that the G7 leaders gave to the initiative at the Denver summit. We have also called on the International Monetary Fund, the World bank and the Paris Club to play their part. We shall take every opportunity to argue our case at the meetings of those organisations.
I can tell the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) that we do not believe that we should grant debt relief without a commitment by debtors to create the right environment for sustainable economic growth. If relief is not to be wasted, our aim must be to ensure that it encourages economic development and leads to lasting
202
poverty reduction. As several hon. Members have said, poverty can be the cause of conflict rather than the effect of it.
Mr. Faber: Just to put the record straight, I did not suggest that Front-Bench Members had said that all debt relief should automatically be cancelled. I merely said that one or two hon. Members mentioned it in the course of their speech.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Several hon. Members mentioned the role of the World bank. We welcome the way in which its image has improved, especially in the past year. The Government welcome the bank's intention to do more to develop poverty-targeted lending. We are encouraging it to improve its poverty assessment as a key instrument in identifying poverty. Like the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, we welcome Mr. James Wolfensohn's personal commitment not only to reduce poverty but to combat corruption, which reduces economic growth and deters investment. We await with interest the bank's action plan of measures to ensure that its own operations are free of corruption.
The hon. Member for Banbury and others raised the subject of aid and trade provision. There are different views about the achievements of ATP over the years, but I am clear that the aid programme should not be about the promotion of commercial objectives. Under the departmental spending review we shall therefore be looking closely at the subject of ATP, at our policies on tying and on how we can establish a better partnership with the private sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham raised the issue of the tying of aid programmes. Conservative Members picked on something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in New York which was not properly reported. We believe that tied aid programmes can impose additional costs on recipients and donors by restricting competition and choice. I am sure that untying is in all our long-term interests. I support the efforts of the OECD in this area; we feel that the time is right to make progress towards multilateral untying. My right hon. Friend actually announced that the United Kingdom is untying the remaining 25 per cent. of our contribution to the special programme of assistance for Africa that is currently tied—some 75 per cent. of our contribution was already untied. We are currently looking more generally at untying aid as part of our overall review.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the excellent work being done by HMS Liverpool, the West Indies guard ship in Montserrat. As well as helping with the search-and-rescue operation, the crew have been assisting in the repair of generators, constructing building shells at Brads and solving plumbing problems at some of the shelters. The crew have been providing good assistance at the current emergency on Montserrat. I can assure the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) and the hon. Members for Westbury and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—the latter apologised for not being able to be here for my reply—that our Department will be making a contribution to the Ministry of Defence defence review. We shall include the value of our troops and ships, both in peace-keeping as well as in disaster relief.
The hon. Member for Banbury and other hon. Members raised the subject of Montserrat and I thank the hon. Member for Banbury for his helpful comments.

203
At meetings held today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State approved urgent assistance to Montserrat. We have made progress towards considering immediate and long-term options to discuss with the elected Government of Montserrat to ensure that the island remains as far as possible a viable and positive entity.
A number of hon. Members, including, I think the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, mentioned co-operation between the military and our Department's staff in Bosnia. I am grateful to him for praising our project partnership with British forces in western Bosnia. It is very productive and it places emphasis on helping ordinary communities—a feature that characterises all our work in Bosnia. I shall say now—the hon. Gentleman can read my remarks in the Official Report at his leisure tomorrow—that I have already had brief discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex have encouraged me to have further discussions with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Dalyell: I was in Bosnia with one of the Scottish regiments at Whit. They need a good deal more resources if they are to do the job as effectively as they would wish.
Mr. Foulkes: I shall take account of my hon. Friend's comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised the subject of Indonesia. I congratulate her on her diligence in pursuing Indonesian issues tirelessly both inside and outside the House. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in reply to a question in the House, we are currently reviewing both the level and focus of our development co-operation with Indonesia, as elsewhere. The issues of poverty and human rights will be central factors in shaping our future development relationship with that country. I hope that my comments will have reassured my hon. Friend.
The right hon. Member for Eddisbury, the hon. Member for Westbury and others mentioned the important role of non-governmental organisations. I bow to no one in my admiration for NGOs. I used to work for one, albeit not in this area, and I think that charities and voluntary organisations do a great deal of good. They have become major players in international development, with important roles both as aid deliverers overseas and, here in the United Kingdom, as advocates for development, which is most helpful from our point of view. We recognise them as important partners in development, whose work is complementary to that of our Department and whose experience can contribute to the design and delivery of our own programmes. We are strongly supportive of the role of organisations such as Population Concern, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who has an intimate knowledge of the issue.
Something that astonishes me after 18 years in this House—like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is that I am still surprised by the bare-faced cheek of the Tories. They presided over a halving of development aid, yet, after eight weeks, they come along and ask why Labour does
204
not immediately set a timetable for increasing our bilateral aid. During the election, we made it clear that we are committed to working within the existing budget ceiling for the first two years, with the aim of then obtaining extra resources in the third year of the Labour Government.
Mr. Faber: Why?
Mr. Foulkes: Because the quality of aid is just as important as the quantity and we want to get that right. We want to make sure that aid is spent according to Labour priorities—our priorities—to help the poorest of the poor. We want to ensure that money is switched away from the sort of projects that the Conservatives supported and the National Audit Office criticised—projects such as the state propaganda radio station in Indonesia and the Pergau dam—to small-scale projects in sectors such as education, health and clean water. Only after that has been achieved can we go with confidence to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for more money.
I remind Conservative Members that, when Labour left office in 1979, the aid budget stood at 0.51 per cent. of gross national product and rising; but when we took over from the discredited Conservative Government, it was 0.27 per cent. of GNP and falling. Let us hear no more lectures from Conservative Members.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Richmond Park and—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There can be only one contribution at a time.
Mr. Foulkes: Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not actually too bothered by them, but I am grateful to you.
I shall add to what I said about UNESCO in an intervention, because some people did not seem to hear what was being said. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am becoming frustrated by people not listening—[interruption.]—and I, too, find the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) very irritating. The cost this year of rejoining UNESCO is only £5 million and, as I told the hon. Member for Richmond Park, it will be met from the contingency reserve. More important, UNESCO has agreed to target our priority of primary education—especially for girls—so that that money will be spent in the most developmentally sound way possible. We had already anticipated points raised by Opposition Members.
I cannot address all the points raised during the debate, but we shall take account of all of them during production of our White Paper. However, I shall make a few remarks on the Commonwealth, a matter that was raised by the right hon. Member for Eddisbury. The Government attach the highest priority to the Commonwealth, its role and its principles. I am glad to say that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting will be held in Edinburgh—the city in which I received much of my education, or at least in which I was taught. The meeting will be held in October and will provide a timely opportunity for us to take a lead on a diverse range of important Commonwealth activities.
The main theme of the Edinburgh meeting will be "Trade, Investment and Development: the Road to Commonwealth Prosperity" and our discussion on that key subject will provide an opportunity to demonstrate that the Commonwealth can and does make a difference.

205
As I said at the beginning, this has been the most comprehensive and constructive debate about international development that we have had for a long time. I believe that it was so helpful because it followed the great boost given to the subject by our stunning victory on 1 May. That victory gave new hope to the people of the developing world, just as it gave new hope to the people of Britain. One of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's first actions was to fulfil our manifesto pledge to put international development at the heart of government, and to appoint a Cabinet Minister to be responsible for it. For all the tributes that have been paid to Lady Chalker—I, too, pay tribute to her—the last Government never put her in the Cabinet.
Not only is the subject important in itself; we now have a Select Committee—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Trawlermen (Compensation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
10 pm
Mr. Alan Johnson: As this is my maiden speech, before I come to the subject of the debate, I shall follow the tradition of the House by paying tribute to my predecessor, Stuart Randall, who represented Kingston upon Hull, West for 14 years. Although he began his working life as an apprentice electrician, it does credit to his hard work, determination and foresight that he developed an expertise in information technology that few have matched.
Stuart was working with computers in the early 1960s, and his subsequent experience as a manager and consultant in the banking, steel and motor industries proved an invaluable asset to the work of the House. Despite his deep knowledge of what is still an esoteric subject, he could not be accused of being the proverbial anorak. He is an open and friendly man, who earned the trust and respect of his constituents—many of whom have written to the local press recently to record their deep appreciation of his work as a dedicated constituency Member.
I do not have time to pay tribute to all my other predecessors, but a mark of the eminence of my city is that other Hull Members include the poet Andrew Marvell, who pleaded to his coy mistress by the tide of Humber. His couplet
"But at my back I always hear
Time's wingèd chariot hurrying near"
should be a maxim for speakers in the Chamber. William Wilberforce was another predecessor of mine, who was born in Hull.
I am proud to represent the people of Hull, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). We form a utilitarian trio: the seafarer, the teacher and the postman. The phrase "workers by hand or by brain" comes to mind—only to be quickly suppressed. We are all enjoying the full fruits of our industry.
I am equally proud to represent the town of Hessle, which was formerly part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran). When my predecessor made his maiden speech, he said that the Humber bridge, which connects with the north bank of the river at Hessle, was not in his constituency. Rectifying that involved either moving the bridge or extending the constituency. I am delighted that the latter option was taken.
Although Hull is rightly famous for its splendid university, its rugby league football team, its publicly owned telephone company—local calls of unlimited duration cost 4p—and its magnificent 13th-century Holy Trinity church, to most people it is synonymous with seafaring. Fishing gave Hull its spirit, its character and, in the main, its livelihood. Of only four distant water ports in this country, Hull was the largest, and was unique in that its boats fished nowhere other than in distant Arctic waters.

207
Distant water fishing is the most arduous and hazardous of occupations. Working most commonly on three-week trips, with 36 hours in port before they set off again, the men were on deck, exposed to temperatures as low as minus 40 deg throughout their 18-hour shifts. In winter, they were constantly involved in struggles to prevent their vessels from icing up. Too much top ice, which could form within minutes, would capsize a trawler. The accident mortality rate was 14 times that of coal mining. In the 150 years from 1835 to 1987, some 900 Hull boats were lost at sea. Few crew members survived.
There is no distant water fishing industry worth speaking of any more. The 3,000 men who carried out that desperately hard and dangerous work lost their jobs, primarily as a direct result of the previous Government's decision not to accept the generous quotas that were offered when Iceland extended its fishing limit to 200 miles 21 years ago. They are the true casualties of the so-called cod wars.
I appreciate that the House is not the place for hyperbole, but I must say that I have never come across a worse case of industrial injustice than the way in which trawlermen, their families and communities were subsequently treated. The issue has been raised countless times in the House by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when he was in opposition, by my predecessor, Stuart Randall, by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and by Opposition Members, because this is not a party political issue.
Both Government and Opposition have had a hand in creating the trawlermen's plight. However, until now a Labour Government have not had an opportunity to resolve it. The Conservative Government made an attempt to solve the problem, but, for reasons which I shall explain later, it was insufficient and inadequate. First, I need to complete the background. Although the trawler owners received generous payments and decommissioning grants, the trawlermen received nothing. There were no assistance programmes, no retraining initiatives and no redundancy compensation.
With nothing but broken promises and expressions of sympathy by the Government and various agencies, the burden of correcting the injustice has fallen to the fishermen themselves, who set up the British Fishermen's Association for that purpose. The Minister will be aware of how this small organisation, financed and run entirely by the men, has doggedly pursued their cause. He will know how they won their case at an industrial tribunal in 1987 on the issue of redundancy pay, only to lose on appeal, and how, in 1993, a further judgment from the Court of Appeal on a different case finally supported the trawlermen's contention that they were not and never had been casual workers.
In response, the Conservative Government established an ex gratia scheme which could belatedly have provided, if not a generous, at least an honourable settlement of the issue. However, that Government insisted that, first, the scheme applied to those who had been misdirected by departmental officials and as a result did not pursue their cases to an industrial tribunal, and, secondly, that payments were based on the necessity of having worked for the same employer for two years.
208
The first criterion excluded those few fishermen, 17 in total, who had pursued their case to a tribunal and lost before the Court of Appeal ruling in 1993. The second criterion failed to recognise the unique nature of the industry and the way that ships were crewed. Trawlermen worked in what was called "the scheme", which was operated by the shipowners and the then Department of Employment, and one of its objectives was to ensure that there was an adequate number of qualified fishermen readily available for all companies participating in the scheme.
When a trawler was tied up, perhaps for a refit, the trawlermen were entitled to dole money and would remain in the scheme. However, if the Department of Employment decided, in conjunction with a participating company, that it would be appropriate for a trawlerman to cover a vacancy on a trawler that belonged to a different company, the trawlerman was compelled to accept or had his benefit stopped. For that and many other reasons relating to the industry, discontinuity of employer was a fact of life.
Those criteria have denied many trawlermen any compensation. For others, the payments have been derisory. For example, one ex-trawlerman who wrote to the previous Prime Minister explained that he had spent 35 years at sea as a distant water trawlerman. However, because of the few occasions in that time that he had worked continuously for two years for the same company, his payment was £450.
There is no legal redress, but there is a political solution. The ex gratia payment scheme can be reopened and reconstituted on a basis that recognises natural justice and the realities of that perilous occupation. The scheme was not inadequate because available finances were limited. The Department of Employment confirmed in a letter to the BFA that there was
"no limit on the number of payments or on the total cash available."
In any case, although I recognise and support the prudent approach of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom we will all listen with interest tomorrow, the amount of money needed to rectify the problem would not even register in the decimal roundings of the Red Book.
It is difficult in such a short debate to explain all the arguments surrounding such a complex issue. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree to meet a delegation front the BFA to discuss the matter further. The House owed a debt of gratitude to the distant water trawlermen for their work when the industry was flourishing. We now owe them justice and some peace of mind, having contributed to the loss of their livelihood.
10.10 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject. It is still a central issue in Grimsby, Hull, Fleetwood and Aberdeen, where people have a long-standing grievance.
I congratulate my hon. Friend, too, on his maiden speech, which shows the vigour and determination with which he will fight in the interests of Hull, West and Hessle and, in particular—I hope—of the fishermen, retired fishermen and redundant trawlermen there. The work was begun by his predecessor, and people in

209
Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood have always co-operated. I was grateful, therefore, that my hon. Friend offered me the opportunity to add something to his effective and powerful speech. It promises well for the future representation of Hull, West and Hessle.
This is an important subject. I do not think that my hon. Friend was being at all controversial in raising it. The fishermen have a real and oppressive grievance, and to raise it is not to depart from the non-controversy rule of maiden speeches. It is nothing more than a statement of the obvious truth.
Fishing was probably the worst and most dangerous job. The death and injury rates were far worse than those in mining. Fishermen were exposed to extreme conditions, particularly around Iceland, in the bitter northern waters around Norway, and further around still. It was an extremely dangerous and tough job, which was brought abruptly to an end—through no fault of the fishermen—effectively by a political decision to extend limits to 200 miles, which excluded them from Iceland, led to a reduction of effort in Norwegian waters and sounded the death knell of the distant water fleet. Those brave men were suddenly thrown on the scrap heap. Their treatment was the worst that has been meted out to any group of workers in the history of modern industrial Britain.
We had a long struggle. My hon. Friend mentioned the efforts of the BFA, which have been extremely important in Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood. All people have been working together for a common purpose. We had enormous help from the Humberside law centre and from Humphrey Forrest, who found the formula that proved that fishermen were employed, not casual workers, as they had been treated.
At the end, the fishermen received basic redundancy pay—nothing more than the legislation entitled them to. Even then, as my hon. Friend pointed out, categories of people were left out of the basic redundancy compensation. People who could not prove two years' continuous employment with one employer did not receive any redundancy, yet the nature of the industry was that people moved from employer to employer. They were still fishermen. They were still working for the owners association. They were just changing, as people did, to another vessel. That was construed as the end of the contract with one employer and the beginning of a contract with another. Even though they had been, as my hon. Friend said, 30 years in fishing, in that dangerous job, they were still treated as casual unless they had more than two years with one employer.
The people who took their cases to a tribunal were excluded from the ex gratia payment. There were also late applicants. Indeed, I have heard from several. In fishing communities, word inevitably gets around slowly. There were those who emigrated. There were those who work in Spain, Australia and New Zealand. There are the people who died, whose widows and families want to claim the compensation. The Conservative Government simply did not allow enough time for claims to be processed and for news to get around. It is right that this matter be reopened and that we have another look at the people who were excluded from ex gratia payments. It is nothing but minimum fairness.
Secondly, large sums of money were paid to the owners as fishing in distant waters ran down. It runs to scores of millions of pounds. Some claims were devious, to say the
210
least. The Public Accounts Committee had a field day proving some of the scandals and scams that were developed between 1983 to 1986 to claim money for the owners. Where did that money go? That is the question that fishermen ask, because none of it went to them. It was intended for the industry, but the fishermen got nothing. The owners pocketed the money. They did not put it back into fishing. There is a case for an inquiry to find out what happened to that money and why none of it went to the fishermen, who got no compensation whatever.
Thirdly, it is not as if the fishermen were treated in the same way as car workers, coal miners or steel workers, all of whom get compensation for the loss of their job—for the death of an industry in this case. The fishermen got absolutely nothing. There is a certainly a moral case—a legal case is more difficult to prove—for considering compensation for these men.
Fourthly, there is the problem of pensions. The men were in the Humber fishermen's scheme, or the trawl fishermen's scheme later on. The payments they received from that were, in many cases, lump sums—perhaps a couple, three hundred or four hundred quid. The payments were extremely small. That is all they got. What happened to the money that was paid into the pension schemes? We need an inquiry into that. We are trying to make headway with the pensions ombudsman and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, but it is a long, slow job to prove individual cases. Again, there is an outstanding injustice there.
My hon. Friend's plea tonight, which I echo, and which, I am sure, will be echoed by fishermen in both ports, is simple: a fair deal for the fishermen, even at this late stage. They lost their jobs under the last Labour Government. When fishing in Icelandic waters stopped, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
"We intend, as a Government, to do all we can to avoid hardship to those concerned … We shall discuss with the unions and employers the feasibility of an arrangement for compensation for those fishermen directly affected by the settlement".—[Official Report, 28 June 1976; Vol. 914, c. 27.]
He added that it had been agreed in principle that a special scheme would be needed.
There was never any special scheme. There was never any compensation. There was never any retraining. There was never any of the benefits that were held out hopefully to the fishermen when fishing in Icelandic waters finished. They have been left without compensation for all this time. It is a crying scandal, about which we should do something now.
This scandal needs to be looked at by the new Labour Government, who are more sensitive—and rightly, too—to the claims of the fishermen. We need to discuss it with the delegation that my hon. Friend asked for. I am delighted he did. I hope that the Minister will concede. It needs to be looked at by an inquiry. In the four ports concerned, there are no more than 5,000 fishermen at most. They need justice. It is time to give them justice. It is more than time for justice.
10.18 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for their speeches.

211
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle on his choice of subject for today's debate on the Adjournment, and I am pleased to be able to respond for the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle is not only a personal friend but has made a fine maiden speech. As a former seaman myself, I found that many of his remarks struck a chord. He spoke eloquently about the harsh environment in which seamen have operated and in which they continue to operate.
My hon Friend also spoke powerfully about the regrettable loss of employment resulting from the sharp downturn in the distant water fishing industry, which occurred particularly in the late 1970s and early 1980s, after the United Kingdom was excluded from Icelandic fishing grounds. I join him in paying tribute to the sterling efforts and achievements of the many former fishermen who suffered because of that decision.
I and my colleagues in government fully realise the extremely arduous conditions that those fishermen had to face in what was then, and remains, one of the most difficult and demanding ways in which to earn a living. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle that, as an hon. Member representing a coalfield community, I have every sympathy for those who lost their livelihood because of economic factors beyond their control. Of course the fishing industry has by no means been alone in suffering such problems—coalfield, steel and textile communities have suffered also—although it has doubtless been hit more severely than most. No one can challenge that fact.
I should say at the beginning of my reply that general policy on the fishing industry is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Many of the specific points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle in his speech—including those on compensatory payments to vessel owners, which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby also mentioned—are really more appropriate for my MAFF colleagues to consider. I will certainly ensure that his concerns are brought to their attention.
The specific aspect that falls fairly and squarely within my own ambit as Minister with responsibility for labour market issues is that of the ex gratia payment arrangements that operated during 1994 and 1995—initially by the Department of Employment and then, following a machinery of government change, in July 1995, by the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I confine most of my remarks to that subject.
I certainly realise the strength of feeling on the issue, and I hope that it will be helpful if I say now that I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle and a delegation from the British Fishermen's Association, as he requested, to consider any further points that they wish to make to me.
My hon. Friend has already explained the general background to the exgratia payment arrangements. In the late 1970s and early 1980s. when many distant water trawlermen became unemployed, there was widespread belief that the intermittent, voyage-by-voyage nature of their work meant that they could not have accrued the two years' continuous service needed to qualify for statutory
212
redundancy payments from their former employers. It was open to them to seek to challenge that belief before industrial tribunals and, if necessary, on appeal before the higher courts.
Many of those fishermen, however, failed to make a claim within the relevant statutory time limits, and consequently lost the opportunity to do so. In some cases, their failure was regrettably due to misdirection by local Employment Department officials, who had told them—in good faith, but nevertheless incorrectly—that they could not pursue their entitlement in that manner.
In 1983, Ministers of the previous Administration agreed that the Government would make ex gratia payments to anyone who could have been disadvantaged by such misdirection, provided that they could establish that they had in fact had an underlying entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment. That question was finally settled only in October 1993, when the Court of Appeal's judgment in the case of Atkinson and Dickinson v. Hellyer Brothers Ltd. made it clear that the former fishermen could in certain circumstances be regarded as having been continuously employed, and could therefore in principle have qualified for statutory redundancy payments.
The Employment Department acted to establish suitable arrangements for making ex gratia payments. The arrangements were well publicised, through interested Members, the British Fishermen's Association and the local press in fishing areas. In line with the underlying rationale of the arrangements, eligibility was restricted to former fishermen who had met the conditions to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment and whose situation indicated that they could have been disadvantaged by misdirection by officials. Some 9,000 payments were made in all during the two years that the arrangements remained in effect, amounting to a total of over £13.6 million.
A number of criticisms have been made of the ex gratia payment arrangements. The main ones that I have noted are: that some former fishermen were excluded; that payments were made in some cases to individuals who were not entitled to them; that the payments were inadequate in terms of their amounts; and that the arrangements were closed prematurely.
I shall endeavour to take up all these points this evening. If I am not able to do so because of a shortage of time, the issues can be discussed further when I meet my hon. Friend and his delegation. I shall be happy during the course of that discussion to receive other information that he might bring forward about the four matters to which I have just referred. I shall consider them in a full, honest and open way.
I must emphasise that the principal responsibility for making statutory redundancy payments to employees rests with their employers. The Department of Trade and Industry generally has no role to play, except where that responsibility would otherwise be unfulfilled—for example, in insolvency cases, where the redundancy payments service protects employees' interests by making payments on the employers' behalf and subsequently seeking to recover the money from them, or their assets.
As I have explained, the ex gratia payment arrangements were set up for the specific and limited purpose of compensating individuals who had lost the opportunity to pursue their statutory rights against their employers in circumstances where this could have been due to misdirection by departmental officials.

213
The arrangements were never intended to compensate former fishermen more generally for the loss of employment in their industry, or to act as a measure of recognition for their overall service to the industry. My hon. Friend clearly considers that they should have had such aims, but they did not, and I think that almost all the criticisms that have been made have stemmed from that fact.
I have already touched on the reasons why certain former fishermen were excluded from the arrangements. In some cases, it was because they had clearly not suffered the misdirection for which ex gratia payments were intended to compensate. This applied where they had made an industrial tribunal claim or had received a statutory redundancy payment at the time of their dismissal. In other cases, it was because, even with the benefit of the Court of Appeal's decision, the former fishermen in question would not have qualified for a statutory redundancy payment in any event. This applied where they had worked for no one employer for two years or more at a time, and so still did not have the necessary qualifying period of service, or where they had been subject to some other exclusion.
I recognise that many former fishermen who lost cases at industrial tribunals did not appeal to the higher courts, and so failed to establish an entitlement. They were free to do so, however, and unlike in those instances where no industrial tribunal claim was made, there can be no suggestion that they were misdirected by departmental officials as to the possibility of pursuing their entitlement by way of legal action.
It has been alleged that, in some instances, ex gratia payments were made to individuals who were not entitled to them. I have been assured by my officials that each claim was scrutinised carefully, and that none was paid unless there were fishing or national insurance records to back it up.
Each claimant was asked to sign a statement that he understood that legal proceedings would be taken against him if he knowingly made a false declaration. Full investigative action has been taken in any instance where fraud has been suspected. If my hon. Friend or members of the British Fishermen's Association could provide evidence of any specific cases where they believe that payments have been made to those not entitled to them, I should be pleased to consider it in due course.
214
A further bone of contention has been that the arrangements were discontinued after two years, at the end of 1995. It seems to me, though, that it is impracticable for such arrangements to be maintained indefinitely, and that two years was not an unreasonable period to allow for claims in this instance. The arrangements compare favourably with the usual six-month and maximum one-year time limits for statutory redundancy payments claims, and with the various time limits for state benefit claims, most of which have been about one year and none as long as the two years allowed in this instance.
As I have mentioned, the arrangements had been well publicised. Indeed, they were common knowledge in port areas, as I am sure my hon. Friend would accept. Departmental officials made every effort to ensure that former fishermen and their families had a reasonable opportunity to claim. The closing date for claims was similarly well publicised. I understand that, by the end of 1995, new claims had for some time been running at a low and steadily declining level. For example, only about 20 a week were received in September 1995, and that had fallen to about 10 per week by November 1995.
Having considered the matter carefully, it seems that the decision to discontinue the arrangements was taken on sound grounds of practicability and good financial management, and was implemented in a reasonable manner. I should add that my officials still give careful consideration to any out-of-time claims that are received, and are prepared to admit them in cases where it is clear that special circumstances made it impossible for them to be submitted before the closing date.
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the details of individual cases, but the House may be interested to know that four out-of-time claims have been approved in such circumstances. That is out of a total of 20 that have been received in the 18 months since the arrangements were discontinued.
Throughout my speech, I have sought to emphasise that the DTI's ex gratia payment arrangements had a specific and limited purpose, and that they were never intended to act as a general measure of compensation for the loss of employment in the fishing industry as a whole. I therefore look forward—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence how many claims by British nuclear test veterans have been made; and how many have been settled. [5447]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is not possible to say precisely how many claims for compensation from the Ministry of Defence have ever been made by British nuclear test veterans. However, my Department's computer records show that since 29 June 1976 109 claims for compensation for radiation linked illnesses have been made by ex-Service personnel who were involved in the British nuclear test programme. All of these cases have been repudiated because independent studies of the health of the test veterans showed that participation in the nuclear testing programme had had no detectable effect on the veterans' life expectation, or on their risk of developing cancer. However, nuclear test veterans may receive a War Pension, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Harman).

  Cyprus (Environmental Damage)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the risks of damage to the environment through British military exercises in the Akamas peninsula in Cyprus; and what measures(a) are being taken and (b) are planned to minimise such damage. [6255]

  Mr. Spellar
  Every effort is made to minimise the environmental impact of military training on the Akamas peninsula. Particular care is taken to avoid starting fires, the most important potential cause of damage from training. Exercises involving live ammunition are undertaken in the wetter and cooler months to minimise the risk. Use of the area is kept to the minimum required to meet essential training requirements and we have offered to discontinue training on the Akamas altogether if the Government of the Republic of Cyprus can provide a suitable alternative site.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of a possible replacement for the Royal Yacht. [6140]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government is currently considering the requirement for a replacement Royal Yacht, and will announce its decision in due course.

  Army Recruiting Organisation
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Defence Agency status for the Army's Recruiting Organisation. [6439]

  Dr. Reid
  On 1 July the Army's recruiting function will be amalgamated with the Army Individual Training Organisation (AITO) which is an existing Defence Agency. As a result of its expanded responsibilities the AITO will be retitled the Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA). The ATRA's Chief Executive, a Major General, will be known as the Director General Army Training and Recruiting (DGATR). The ATRA's headquarters will continue to be based at Upavon, Wiltshire; alongside the Headquarters of the Adjutant General who will continue as the Agency's owner. The Agency will assume responsibility for an additional 598 military and 337 civilian staff employed at various recruiting units, including the Armed Forces Careers Offices and Army Careers Information Offices throughout the country. Altogether the ATRA will employ 11,153 personnel at 178 locations.

  The integration of the recruiting and individual training functions into a single Defence Agency will further improve efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of trained manpower to the Army. The ATRA's mission will be "to recruit and train young people to become the best soldiers in the world". The Chief Executive has been set the following Key Targets for the first year of operation:

  1. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for Commissioned Officers. 1

  2. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for officers qualified for service in a Field Force Unit following successful Special-to-Arm training. 1

  3. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for officers' professional development training. 1

  4. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for soldiers qualified for service in a Field Force Unit following successful Special-to-Arm Training. 1

  5. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for soldiers' professional development training. 1

  6. To achieve efficiency savings greater than £20 million in 1997–98. During the year to develop an efficiency index that measures training output and associated costs as a baseline to achieve year on year improvements in efficiency.

  I shall arrange for copies of the agency's Framework Document to be placed in the Library of both Houses.
  1 As expressed in the Statement of Training Requirement (SOTRs) which stipulate the numbers to be trained, the standards to be achieved and when the output is required. SOTRs are published (internally within MOD) in AG's Annual Management Plan, although with the agreement of the Agency they may be updated during the year to reflect changes to the requirement.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Analytical Services Agency for 1997–98. [6438]

  Dr. Reid
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency for
  73
  financial year 1997–98. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in July 1992 and are as follows:

  Delivery of customer service and quality

  The majority of the Agency's business is covered by Service Level Agreements with customers, which set out the targets for timeliness and quality of work. For the parts of the business where Service Level Agreements are inappropriate, Project Agreements are in place. The Agency is committed to achieving a continual improvement in the range and quality of the services provided to customers. Key targets are:

  (a) To meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets set in the Service Level Agreements and Project Agreements.

  (b) To have at least 90 per cent. of customers saying they are at least satisfied with the timeliness, quality of work and helpfulness of staff in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey covering all aspects of the business.

  (c) To have at least 25 per cent. of customers receiving DASA services in both 1996–97 and 1997–98 report an improvement in the services provided in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey.

  (d) To demonstrate a further, independently assessed, improvement in the quality of published output.

  Efficiency and business excellence

  The Agency plans to make efficiency savings in 1997–98 as well as meeting the additional demands placed upon it by a number of important studies and initiatives. The Agency is committed to continual improvement and is using the Business Excellence Model as a means of driving this forward. Key targets are:

  (e) To achieve a British Quality Foundation validated score of 350 points or more against the Business Excellence Model.

  (f) To deliver efficiency savings with a value of at least 2.5 per cent. of the initial running cost cash allocation.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, column 263, what factors underlie the differences of policy between Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and his Department in respect of the disclosure of the name of the company whose baton gun is authorised for police use in the United Kingdom. [6296]

  Dr. Reid
  There is no difference in policy between my Department and Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in this respect. My Answer of 19 June to my hon. Friend,Official Report, column 263, related to the manufacturer of the baton rounds rather than the baton gun.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 19 June,Official Report, column 262, what happened on or before 24 March to prompt his Department to advise the RUC that some 1994 plastic baton rounds were outside agreed specification when earlier tests carried out in 1995 were not considered conclusive. [6107]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 30 June 1997]: Following a meeting of MOD technical staff in February 1997 to discuss the baton round development programme, the MOD decided that rounds manufactured in 1994 should be withdrawn from operational use. This decision was taken in the light of the tests carried out in 1995 and
  74
  further tests which had been conducted in 1996. The 1996 tests showed that batches of rounds manufactured in that year did not exceed the specification and were therefore to be preferred to the 1994 rounds.

  Defence Industry (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what help he will make available to defence-related companies in the Chelmsford area to diversify into non-military activities to offset redundancies in the defence industry; [3784]

  (2) what help his Department will make available to employees of Marconi Communications in Chelmsford who have been made redundant to help them retrain and get back into work; and if he will make a statement. [3786]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: I have met with the hon. Member to discuss this matter. I understand that he has also raised with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Business, Trade and Industry the question of what help can be made available in the fields of retraining and assistance. The Ministry of Defence does not currently have a role in such measures. However, I hope that in the future our developing policy towards defence diversification will offer some help in similar situations. As I told the House on 16 June, the Government will be making proposals in the autumn on how best to give effect to the objectives for defence diversification as outlined in our manifesto.

  A1-Yamamah Contract
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish the level of commission paid to individuals to secure the A1-Yamamah contract. [5622]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 27 June 1997]: The British Government have not employed business agents to secure the A1-Yamamah contract and has paid no commissions. Any use of agents by companies associated with A1-Yamamah is a matter for those companies, but the prime contractor, British Aerospace, has assured us that it operates in accordance with the laws and regulations of Saudi Arabia.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will transfer responsibility for that part of Elmbridge currently in the Metropolitan police area to the Surrey police area. [6223]

  Mr. Michael
  We have no plans to change the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the titles and purposes of those conventions(a) proposed and (b) agreed under the Home and Justice Pillar of the treaty of Maastricht which proposed that the European Court of Justice should have judicial powers in respect of that convention; in each case what was the position of Her Majesty's Government in

  75
  respect of providing those powers for the Court; and what parliamentary proceedings are planned before ratification of each agreed convention. [5564]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  Seven conventions have been agreed under the third pillar of the treaty on European Union, and six more are currently under discussion. The information requested is set out in respect of each convention.

  Concluded conventions

  1. Convention on the Establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention)
  The purpose is to establish a European police office. The European Court of Justice has jurisdiction over disputes relating to conditions of employment of Europol staff. A subsequent protocol to the convention establishes an optional jurisdiction for the court in respect of points referred by national courts for preliminary rulings. The convention was ratified by the United Kingdom on 10 December following debates in both Houses of Parliament on an order granting Europol legal status in the United Kingdom.

  2. Convention on the Use of information Technology for Customs Purposes (Customs Information System Convention)
  The purpose is to enhance the exchange of intelligence between member states on the movement of drugs and other prohibited or sensitive goods. The convention establishes jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice to rule on disputes between member states and between member states and the European Commission. The Court also has an optional jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on interpretation of the convention, subject to member states declaring whether they will accept this jurisdiction. The convention was ratified by the United Kingdom on 18 June 1997.

  3. Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests (Fraud Convention)
  The purpose is to ensure that frauds committed against European Community (EC) funds are appropriately criminalised in all member states. The European Court of Justice has jurisdiction over certain parts of the convention to rule on disputes between member states, disputes between member states and the European Commission and proceedings brought by individuals against the Commission. The convention establishes an optional jurisdiction for the Court to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of the convention and its first protocol, subject to member states declaring whether they will accept this jurisdiction. An order under section 78(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 is required before the convention can be ratified.

  4. Convention on the Fight against Corruption Involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of Member States of the European Union
  The purpose is to ensure that acts of corruption by or in relation to European Community or national officials (whether or not to the detriment of the EC budget) are appropriately criminalised in all member states. The European Court of Justice has jurisdiction over disputes between member states, and over disputes between member states and the European Commission as regards certain articles. The convention establishes an optional jurisdiction for the Court to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of certain articles, subject to the acceptance of such jurisdiction by member states. No further parliamentary proceedings are required to ratify the convention.

  5. Convention on Simplified Extradition Procedure between the Member States of the European Union
  The purpose is to improve extradition procedures between the member states in cases where the subject consents. The European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction. Ratification of the convention will require amendment of the Extradition Act 1989.
  76
  6. Convention Relating to Extradition between the Member States of the European Union
  The purpose is to improve extradition procedures between member states. The European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction. Ratification of the convention will require amendment of the Extradition Act 1989.

  7. Convention on the Service in the Member States of the European Union of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters
  The purpose is to formalise procedures for the service of documents in civil and commercial matters. The European Court of Justice has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of the convention, subject to the acceptance of such jurisdiction by member states. Ratification procedures may require changes to the Rules of Court.

  Proposed conventions under discussion

  1. Draft Convention on Driving Disqualifications.
  The purpose of the convention is to prevent drivers who are given a driving disqualification in a member state from escaping the ban when they travel to another member state. There is no provision for European Court of Justice jurisdiction.

  2. Draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between Member States of the European Union.
  The purpose of the convention is to update and improve procedures for provision of mutual legal assistance between member states in criminal matters. There is no provision for European Court of Justice jurisdiction.

  3. Draft Convention on the Crossing of the Erternal Frontiers of the Member States of the European Union.
  The purpose is to provide for common standards of immigration control at the external frontiers of the European Union. The draft convention contains provision for the European Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of the convention and to rule on disputes between member states and the European Commission.

  4. Draft Convention on Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters (Brussels II Convention).
  The purpose is to allow the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters between member states. No decisions have yet been taken about European Court of Justice jurisdiction.

  5. Draft Convention on Mutual Assistance and Co-operation between Customs Administrations (Naples II Convention).
  The purpose is to foster operational co-operation and assistance between customs administrations of the European Union. No decisions have yet been made about possible European Court of Justice jurisdiction.

  6. Draft Eurodac Convention.
  The purpose is to set up a system of collection, storage, exchange and comparison of fingerprints of applicants for asylum, m connection with Article 15 of the Convention Determining the Stale Responsible for Examining Applications for Asylum Lodged in one of the member states of the European Communities (the Dublin convention—a pre-Maastricht instrument). The issue of possible European Court of Justice jurisdiction has yet to be discussed.

  The Government's views
  As all conventions agreed under the third pillar require unanimity, it may be taken that Her Majesty's Government were content with any role established for the Court in respect of the concluded conventions. As regards draft conventions still under discussion, the Government's general approach is to consider the possible need for European Court of Justice jurisdiction in each case on its merits.

  Schengen Agreement
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the decision on whether or not to join the Schengen Agreement was influenced by his assessment of the technical and operational documents relating thereto; and if he will make a statement. [6098]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have no intention of signing the Schengen agreement because it would require the removal of United Kingdom frontier controls with other member states. This decision was not influenced by our examination of documents relating to the implementation of the agreement.

  Extradition (Mr. Ronnie Biggs)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the extradition treaty with Brazil is to be concluded; and what steps he is taking to secure the extradition of Mr. Ronnie Biggs. [5605]

  Mr. Michael
  The United Kingdom/Brazil extradition treaty was signed on 18 July 1995. Both the United Kingdom and Brazil have now completed the necessary domestic parliamentary procedures for ratification. Preparations are in hand for the drawing up of the instrument of ratification for signature by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. This will then be forwarded to Brazil where Her Majesty's ambassador will exchange instruments with a representative of the Brazilian Government. The treaty will come into force on the date of the exchange of instruments of ratification. Only then could any request for extradition be made. In line with normal practice, I would not disclose the existence of any request until proceedings had been instituted in the requested state.

  Passport Agency (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of the Passport Agency in Northern Ireland in relation to the use of the name of the city and county of Londonderry. [5639]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is the policy of the Passport Agency in Northern Ireland to issue passports showing the place of birth as either Londonderry or Derry, depending on which has been used by the applicant on the application form. The county in which an applicant is born is not recorded on passports.

  Mr. Jonathan Aitken
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers and of which rank are currently assigned to investigate the alleged offences of Mr. Jonathan Aitken. [6058]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner informs me that a senior detective from the Specialist Operations Department at New Scotland Yard has been appointed to investigate the allegation. Other detectives will assist the inquiry. They will be selected on the basis of the skills they bring to the task, and not according to their rank.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to announce changes to the handling of asylum applications from nationals of Sierra Leone. [6546]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In view of the current situation in Sierra Leone, we have decided to declare that that country has undergone such a fundamental change in circumstances that we would not normally order the return of a person to that country for the time being. The effect is that a Sierra Leonean national who entered the United Kingdom previously and applies for asylum within three months of this declaration being made, becomes eligible to claim social security benefits while their application is considered by my Department. No decisions will be made on asylum applications made by Sierra Leonean nationals until the situation stabilises.

  Police Act 1997
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement part IV of the Police Act 1997. [6547]

  Mr. Michael
  We intend to bring part IV of the Police Act 1997, which establishes the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) as an executive non-departmental public body (NDPB), into force in two stages. In the autumn, we shall appoint the board of PITO and confer on it the necessary powers to bring to fruition the preparations required to establish the NDPB. The board will then take on its statutory functions in respect of police information technology and procurement with effect from 1 April 1998. PITO's new status will bring the police service into the heart of decision making and lead to the improved delivery of cost-effective and timely information technology systems.

  PITO was set up in April 1996 on an interim basis as part of the Home Office. We are today publishing the organisation's first annual report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to establish a rolling electoral register; and if he will make a statement. [5048]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We are examining this issue carefully.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter the guidance issued to electoral registration officers; and if he will make a statement. [6022]

  Mr. Howarth
  Guidance is issued regularly to electoral registration officers on all aspects of electoral registration as this is required. Written guidance was last issued to electoral registration officers and acting returning officers in England and Wales on 19 June.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will(a) assess the (i) advantages and (ii) disadvantages and (b) estimate the costs of introducing a rolling electoral registration system. [6024]
  79
  Mr. Howarth
  We are examining this issue carefully and will look at the points mentioned by my hon. Friend.

  Postal and Proxy Voting
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to ensure that persons requiring a postal vote at elections are properly informed about the availability of postal votes and proxy voting and have time to complete the relevant forms. [5049]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Absent voting facilities were publicised at the general election through a television campaign and advertisements in the national press. We are currently reviewing the effectiveness of this publicity. The closing dates for absent vote applications were recently relaxed as set out in the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1997.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons forms for infirm elderly and disabled persons requiring a postal or proxy vote were not available at some electoral registration offices prior to the 1997 general election. [5050]

  Mr. Howarth
  I understand that in the Wakefield area, just before the general election, application forms for an absent vote for an indefinite period were not available. Electors affected by this were provided with alternative application forms so that they could obtain an absent vote for the elections on 1 May. They were subsequently supplied with application forms to give them absent votes for an indefinite period.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 by type of offence and police force area 1992–95

  Sections 1 to 5 and 101

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Police force area

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Avon und Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Cheshire

  2

  2

  —

  —

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  4

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  1

  —

  —

  —

  5

  3

  1

  —

  Derbyshire

  3

  3

  4

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  8

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  3

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  6

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Humberside

  4

  4

  3

  3

  —

  —

  3

  2

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  7

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Northumbria

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  South Yorkshire

  2

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  8

  6

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  1

  —

  6

  1

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Polling Stations (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the numbers of disabled people who failed to vote at the last general election due to their inability to gain access to polling stations; and if he will make a statement. [6014]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the number of disabled people who could not vote in person at the general election because they could not gain access to a polling station is not collected centrally. District and London borough councils are statutorily required to designate as polling places, so far as is reasonable and practicable, only places which are accessible to the disabled. Acting returning officers may apply to the Home Office for grants towards the cost of providing temporary ramps where it is not possible for them to use a building for the purpose of a polling place which affords easy access for the disabled. Grants are also available for specially adapted polling screens for use by the disabled.

  Protection of Badgers Act
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests, (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions have been recorded under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 in each year since 1992, broken down by local authority in (i) England and (ii) Wales; and if he will make a statement. [5706]

  Mr. Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the number of people arrested for specific offences is not collected centrally.

  Available court proceedings data, by police force area, are given in the table. 1996 information will be available in the autumn.
  81

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for offence under the protection of Badgers Act 1992 by type of offence and police force area 1992–95

  Section 1 to 5 and 101

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Police force area

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  West Mercia

  9

  7

  2

  —

  4

  4

  2

  2

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  2

  1

  7

  3

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England

  42

  23

  46

  20

  32

  22

  33

  21

  Dyfed Powys

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  3

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  3

  3

  2

  2

  7

  5

  3

  3

  South Wales

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  8

  5

  2

  2

  7

  5

  8

  6

  England and Wales

  50

  28

  48

  22

  39

  27

  41

  27

  1 Offences of cruelly to badgers and special protection for badgers and their setts.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 by type of offence and police force area 1992–95

  Section 132

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Police force area

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Sussex

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  6

  6

  —

  —

  1

  1

  West Yorkshire

  4

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England

  11

  8

  12

  9

  10

  8

  6

  5

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Gwent

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  England and Wales

  12

  9

  12

  9

  11

  8

  7

  6

  2 Offence of failing to give up dog for destruction or having custody of a dog while disqualified (Powers of court where dog used or present at commission of offence under Sections 1, 2 or 3 of the Act).

  Pros = Prosecutions, Con = Convictions.

  82

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Act
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests, (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions have been recorded under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 since its introduction, broken down by local authority in (i) England and (ii) Wales; and if he will make a statement. [5703]

  Mr. Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the number of people arrested for specific offences is not collected centrally.

  Information on court proceedings under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which came into force on 29 April 1996, will first become available this autumn. That information will be by police force area and not by local authority area.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the public spending implications in respect of(a) land reclamation, (b) infrastructure works, (c) costs, (d) road construction and (e) other items arising from the decision to proceed with a Millennium Exhibition in Greenwich. [5633]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  All these regeneration costs are included in existing public expenditure plans. The Millennium Exhibition itself has no public spending implications. The Millennium Commission has pledged its support for the project by committing £400 million of National Lottery proceeds to it.

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for an additional bank holiday in the year 2000 to celebrate the Millennium. [6133]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 30 June 1997]: There is a clear demand in the country for a one-off additional bank holiday to mark the Millennium. I shall be recommending to colleagues that my Department proceed to consultation with the relevant interest groups on the basis that the holiday should take place on Friday 31 December 1999.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Record Office
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the key performance targets for the Public Record Office executive agency for 1997–98. [6545]

  Mr. Hoon
  The following table sets out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for the Public Record Office for 1997–98.
  84

  Public Record Office Key Performance Indicators and Targets 1997–98

  Indicator

  Target

  Efficiency

  Unit costs of key activities:

  (a) record accessions;

  Reduce by 37.55 per cent. to £1.68.

  (b) providing record storage space per linear metre;

  Limit increase to 0.93 per cent., i.e. to £67.52.

  (c) making documents available to users per document;

  Reduce by 23.38 per cent. to £3.90.

  (d) providing Census reader services per reader visit;

  Reduce by 17.68 per cent. to £4.33.

  (e) providing document reader services per reader visit;

  Reduce by 16.95 per cent. to £37.24.

  (f) providing remote user information services per contact.

  Reduce by 42.10 per cent. to £26.38.

  Backlog of records reported by departments as being over 30 years old and awaiting review.

  Reduce by 1200 metres.

  The timely destruction of records not worthy of preservation.

  Departments to have in place key features of records management, as specified in the PRO Manual of Records Administration.

  Provision of acceptable storage conditions i.e. meeting the preservation and environmental standards recommended by BS 5454: 1989 Recommendation for storage and exhibition of documents (BSI. 1989).

  Increase the proportion of records stored to the standards from 87.85 per cent, to 88.12 per cent.

  Management efficiency in running support services and projects.

  Reduce the running costs of the Office's support services as a proportion of overall running costs from 9.8 per cent. to 9.01 per cent.

  Quality of Service

  Citizen's Charter Standards.

  Achieve the Charter Standard targets.

  Effectiveness

  Performance in achieving specified milestones towards strategic objectives.

  I. Carry out the quinquennial agency review of the Office and implement its agreed recommendations to the required timetable.

  II. Extend the Office's opening hours by 29 per cent.

  III. Increase revenue by 13 per cent, against the 1996–97 target.

  Fuller details of the agency's targets are given in its business plan, which is available from the Public Record Office.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drugs Tsar
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the President of the Council what will be the responsibilities and terms of appointment of the official described as the drugs tsar. [2384]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The post-holder will be responsible to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Drug Misuse, which I chair. His or her main tasks will be to provide visible leadership in the fight against drugs; to support and help co-ordinate the efforts of relevant agencies; and to draw up for ministerial consideration a new strategy for
  85
  tackling drugs. Detailed terms of reference are being drawn up, and an appointment will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the President of the Council when she expects to reply to the question of 5 June from the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed relating to the drugs tsar. [6336]

  Mrs. Taylor
  I have replied to the hon. Member today.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the special advisers in her Department, the Minister to whom each is responsible, the subjects on which they advise and the number of advisers in her Department in the year up to 1 May. [5365]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  Subject to final agreement on their salaries, three special advisers are being appointed in the Privy Council Office: Mr. Ian McKenzie, Mr. Damien Welfare and Miss Marianne Morris. Special advisers are employed on terms and conditions based on a model contract, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Mr. McKenzie is to advise me, and Mr. Welfare and Miss Morris are to advise my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, in his capacity as Leader of the House of Lords, on a range of matters concerning parliamentary business and, in particular legislation, in accordance with schedule 1 (part 1) of the Model Contract. The number of special advisers to Ministers in the Privy Council Office during the financial year 1996–97 was two.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Planning Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the review of the area plans in respect of the Down and Newry and Mourne district council areas will be included in the Planning Service's business case for the financial year 1997–98. [5407]

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

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 26 June 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the Down and Newry and Mourne area plans.
  As I explained in my recent letter of 20 June 1997 on this issue, the review of the Down and Newry and Mourne area plans is not included in the Agency's Business Plan for 1997–98, a copy of which is enclosed. I explained that the programming of work on both plans will be taken into account in accordance with competing priorities and available resources. At present, there is no agreed time-scale for the commencement and execution of the work.
  I do hope this further clarifies the position.

  Absent Voting
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the number of absent voting papers issued in each local government area for the 1993 and 1997 elections and the Northern Ireland total 86
  and percentage, and the percentage difference for each council between 1993 and 1997; and if she will make a statement. [3832]

  Mr. Murphy
  The information requested is as follows:

  1993 and 1997 Northern Ireland District Council General Elections

  Absent voters

  District Council

  1993

  1997

  Percentage difference

  Derry

  1,637

  1,912

  16.80

  Limavady

  990

  927

  -6.36

  Coleraine

  1,407

  1,296

  -7.89

  Ballymoney

  375

  462

  23.20

  Moyle

  486

  380

  -21.81

  Larne

  287

  274

  -4.53

  Ballymena

  872

  851

  -2.41

  Magherafelt

  1,212

  1,902

  56.93

  Cookstown

  2,206

  2,539

  15.10

  Strabane

  1,125

  2,072

  84.18

  Omagh

  2,005

  2,665

  32.92

  Fermanagh

  3,581

  4,206

  17.45

  Dungannon

  3,117

  3,396

  8.95

  Craigavon

  1,461

  1,422

  -2.67

  Armagh

  2,385

  2,974

  24.69

  Newry and Mourne

  2,884

  3,529

  22.36

  Banbridge

  1,588

  1,526

  -3.90

  Down

  2,714

  2,164

  -20.26

  Lisburn

  1,098

  1,192

  8.56

  Antrim

  665

  503

  -24.36

  Newtownabbey

  659

  582

  -11.68

  Carrickfergus

  386

  366

  -5.18

  North Down

  689

  765

  11.03

  Ards

  568

  727

  27.99

  Castlereagh

  432

  463

  7.17

  Belfast

  2,633

  2,913

  10.63

  Total

  37,462

  42,008

  12.13

  These figures show there has been a significant increase in the overall numbers of absent votes in Northern Ireland.

  It is also the case however that in almost half of the local government areas the number of voting papers issued in 1997 were down on the 1993 figures. In Antrim by 24 per cent., in Moyle by 21 per cent. and in Down by 20 per cent. In areas where there has been an increase it has been less than 12 per cent. in over a quarter and less than 20 per cent. in over half. Nevertheless in 1997 in four local government areas (Strabane, Magherafelt, Omagh and Ards) voting papers issued increased by more than 25 per cent.

  Unemployment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will identify the categories and travel-to-work areas of long-term unemployed people. [5140]

  Majorie Mowlam
  The latest available information as at 8 May 1997 is as follows:
  87

  Number of long-term (one year or more) unemployed in Northern Ireland at 8 May 1997 by travel-to-work area and occupational sought

  News Socus: Trawl-to-work Area

  Ballymena

  Belfast

  Coleraine

  Cookstown

  Craigavon

  Dungannon

  Enniskillen

  Londonderry

  Magherofelt

  Newry

  Omagh

  Strabane

  Total

  Health

  21

  339

  54

  11

  47

  25

  27

  76 1

  8

  57

  35

  15

  715

  Teaching

  12

  159

  24

  3

  19

  11

  11

  38

  4

  8

  10

  5

  304

  Construction

  174

  2,531

  508

  183

  468

  427

  529

  690

  322

  691

  311

  239

  7,073

  Transport

  70

  1,045

  136

  69

  222

  110

  126

  249

  53

  261

  127

  83

  2,551

  Clothing

  9

  221

  28

  16

  56

  25

  15

  89

  23

  29

  10

  32

  553

  Agriculture

  21

  300

  172

  44

  115

  90

  168

  98

  36

  133

  80

  121

  1,378

  Business

  3

  74

  11

  6

  10

  4

  6

  9

  1

  5

  8

  1

  138

  Law

  12

  214

  34

  5

  24

  5

  17

  43

  4

  19

  5

  10

  392

  Food

  31

  282

  65

  15

  141

  19

  62

  77

  16

  72

  23

  13

  816

  Catering

  30

  1,012

  114

  22

  95

  30

  77

  238

  25

  88

  68

  37

  1,856

  Clerical

  57

  768

  67

  21

  112

  55

  54

  138

  15

  84

  50

  23

  1,444

  Labouring

  76

  3,579

  472

  156

  655

  94

  283

  1,606

  54

  475

  351

  392

  8,193

  Managerial

  9

  161

  21

  1

  32

  6

  4

  31

  2

  19

  6

  5

  297

  Engineering

  6

  69

  6

  1

  12

  6

  5

  18

  2

  3

  12

  7

  147

  Miscellaneous

  174

  1,788

  165

  32

  183

  110

  34

  178

  60

  57

  33

  45

  2,859

  Skilled

  24

  1,079

  164

  52

  128

  82

  48

  215

  69

  156

  69

  84

  2,170

  Sales

  40

  826

  89

  31

  102

  52

  61

  143

  23

  89

  74

  36

  1,566

  Computing

  12

  346

  32

  6

  50

  23

  19

  75

  13

  59

  26

  21

  682

  Other/NK

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Total

  781

  14,796

  2,162

  674

  2,471

  1,194

  1,546

  4,011

  730

  2,305

  1,298

  1,170

  33,138

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the ACPO Joint Standing Committee on Police Use of Firearms was informed of the use of faulty plastic bullets. [6115]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 30 June 1997]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers Joint Standing Committee on the Police Use of Firearms was informed that certain plastic baton rounds were not performing to the required specification on 25 March 1997.

  Alcohol Smuggling (Sunday Markets)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide details of the seizures of alcohol smuggled through Sunday markets in the past six months. [5246]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that no central figures are kept.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the special advisers in his Department, the Minister to whom each is responsible, the subjects on which they advise and the number of advisers in his Department in the year up to 1 May. [5363]

  Dr. David Clark
  I have appointed one special adviser, Andrew Lappin, who is responsible to me.

  Mr. Lappin is employed under terms and conditions based on the model contract for special advisers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Mr. Lappin advises me on issues across the range of my responsibilities in accordance with Schedule 1 (Part 1) of the Model Contract.
  88
  There were two special advisers in my Department in the year up to 1 May. Sir Paul Judge was special adviser to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster until resigning in July 1996; he was succeeded by Andrew Caesar-Gordon from September 1996 to March 1997.

  In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State had two special advisers in his office. Dr. Alan Kemp until his resignation in December 1996; and Lady Eileen Strathnaver until April 1997.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster where the Deregulation Unit which was part of the Cabinet Office is now located; and by what name it is now known. [5634]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Deregulation Unit has been renamed the Better Regulation Unit to reflect our priority to get regulation right. It remains a core part of the Cabinet Office. The Government is committed to ensuring that regulations are simple, helpful and fair both to business, particularly small firms, and to the citizen.

  The work of the Unit will contribute to my Department's White Paper, "Better Government" to be published in the autumn, setting out a unified programme for the renewal of government.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to re-assess the deregulation initiative; and if he will make a statement. [5416]

  Dr. Clark
  The Government is committed to ensuring that regulations are simple, helpful and fair. We aim to deliver responsible and responsive regulation for business, particularly small firms, and the citizen. The Deregulation Unit has been renamed the Better Regulation Unit to reflect our priority to get regulation right.

  We are giving small firms a greater voice by appointing six small business representatives on the revitalised Task Force. To develop practical measures to help small businesses, we are setting up a cross-departmental group on "Access Business". It will draw together regulatory advice and forms into a simpler, more unified service, in particular using advances in information technology.
  89
  We are equally committed to removing bureaucracy from the lives of ordinary people, bringing citizens' issues to the fore. We will focus on key groups—the elderly, the young, the disadvantaged and volunteers.

  The work of the Unit will contribute to my Department's White Paper, "Better Government" to be published in the autumn, setting out a unified programme for the renewal of government.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what policy he will adopt in relation to the further deregulation of British industry. [5635]

  Dr. Clark
  As we made clear in our Manifesto, we are committed not to impose unnecessary burdens on business. I am also appointing a revitalised Task Force and will work with them to lift regulatory burdens wherever appropriate.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to improve the regulation of British industry. [5636]

  Dr. Clark
  I aim to modernise Government for business—particularly small firms—and citizens by achieving better quality regulation. To develop practical measures to help small businesses, we are setting up a cross-departmental group on "Access Business". It will draw together regulatory advice and forms into a simpler, more unified service, in particular using advances in information technology.

  I am also in the process of appointing a revitalised Task Force, half of whose members will represent small business. I look forward to working with them to ensure that new regulations are simple, helpful and fair.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to which public bodies the Government's proposed Freedom of Information Act will apply. [5972]

  Dr. David Clark
  We believe that the Freedom of Information Act should apply to a substantial number of public bodies in addition to central Government departments and agencies. Details of our proposals will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper.

  Sovereign (Communications)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will review public access to those communications sent directly to the Sovereign from other Heads of State relating to the political relations between the country concerned and the United Kingdom. [5712]

  Mr. David Clark
  Communications about political matters from Heads of State to the Sovereign are referred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and therefore come within the ambit of the Public Records Acts. The forthcoming White Paper on Freedom of Infermation will address the issue of public access to all types of government records.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Rifle Range
  Ms Gisela Stuart
  To ask the President of the Council what arrangements exist for access by hon. Members to the rifle range; how many members of the rifle club there are; and how many of these are hon. Members. [4064]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I am advised by the Rifle Club that it has 24 members, four of whom are hon. Members. If hon. Members wish to access the rifle range they can contact the club.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Social Chapter
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many directives under the social chapter are currently being prepared by the European Commission; and how many of these will be subject to unanimous decision. [6088]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Commission have launched consultations with a view to possible legislation in two areas under the Social Agreement: rights to part-time workers, on which the European Social Partners have negotiated a framework agreement which may be translated into a directive; and arrangements for information and consultation of workers, on which the Commission recently published a consultation paper. The Voting procedure for directives on either of these issues would be Qualified Majority Voting.

  European Parliament, Strasbourg
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of maintaining the European Parliamentary presence in Strasbourg in 1996; and how much has been spent upgrading the buildings there and in Brussels. [6096]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There is no readily available break down of the complete cost of the EP presence in Strasbourg. Title 2 chapter 20 of Section 1 of the 1996 budget of the EU (Official Journal, volume 39 of 29 January 1996) gives details of investments in immovable property, rental of buildings and associated costs for the EP's Strasbourg site at a total cost of 23,836,078 ecu (£16,713,994). Title 2, Section 1, articles 204 and 209 of the 1996 budget and Title 2, Section 1 articles 204 and 209 of the 1997 budget (Official Journal, volume 40 of 14 February 1997) give details of costs of fitting-out of premises and other expenditure on buildings, in Brussels and Strasbourg, in 1996 and 1997 at a total cost of 21,371,000 ecu (£14,991,756).

  European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the activity of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. [6093]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We welcome the establishment of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. It will gather, and provide to the Community
  91
  and Member States, information on the phenomena of racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism. This information will be particularly in the fields of:

  (a) free movement of persons;

  (b) media and communication;

  (c) education, vocational training, youth;

  (d) social policy including employment;

  (e) free movement of goods;

  (f) culture.

  Lomé Convention
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the United Kingdom's approach to the negotiations on a successor to the fourth Asian, Caribbean, Pacific/European Union Convention of Lomé. [6144]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Lomé Convention is the main cooperation agreement between the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states, covering political dialogue, development assistance and preferential trade access for ACP goods to the EU. It is one of the mainstays of the UK's relations with the ACP states. We will play a leading role in formulating the EU's mandate for a successor to Lomé IV, especially during our Presidency in 1998. We will work for a coherent outcome which increases poverty focus and improves effectiveness, promotes an outward-looking EU and strengthen links with the Commonwealth, 38 of whose members belong to the ACP group.

  China
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the potential for development of United Kingdom relations with China after the handover of Hong Kong. [5718]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We aim to build a new, broad and forward-looking relationship with China. We want Hong Kong to be a bridge not a barrier between us, but that will depend on China honouring its undertakings in the Joint Declaration. Britain and China have substantial common interests. We look forward to dialogue and cooperation across a full range of issues.

  Council of the European Union
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for July; and if he will list the major EU events for the next six months. [6437]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Details are as follows.

  MONTHLY FORECAST OF BUSINESS FOR JULY 1997

  The following Councils are scheduled:

  July 4–5: Labour and Social Affairs Council (Informal)

  July 7: Ecofin Council

  July 22–23: General Affairs Council

  July 22–23: Agriculture Council

  July 24: Budget Council

  92
  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  July 4–5: Labour and Social Affairs Council (Informal)

  No formal agenda.

  July 7: ECOFIN Council

  Approval of the agenda.

  Approval of the list of A items.

  Work Programme of Luxembourg Presidency: open debate.

  Convergence Programme of Italy (possible item).

  Follow-up to Amsterdam Council (possible item).

  Technical characteristics of Euro coins.

  Other Business:

  Preparation of the ASEM/EU Finance Ministers' meeting;

  Preparation of the EFTA/EU Finance Ministers' meeting.

  July 22–23: General Alidirs Council

  Agenda not yet available.

  July 22–23: Agriculture Council

  EU/Third countries veterinary and phytosanitary equivalence agreements (possible item).

  Hops (possible item).

  Animal welfare (possible item).

  BSE (possible item).

  Set-aside rate for 1998 (possible item).

  July 24: Rtulget Council

  EU Budget for 1998.

  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  European calendar: July to December 1997

  Venue

  Event

  July 1997

  1

  —

  Luxembourg Presidency begins

  3

  Luxembourg

  Visit by Commission

  4–5

  Echternach

  Labour and Social Affairs Council (Informal)

  7

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  10–11

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  14–18

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  August 1997

  There are no events scheduled for August.

  September 1997

  4

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  7–9

  Echternach

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  12–14

  Mondorf

  Ecofin Council (Informal)

  15–16

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  15–19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  22–25

  New York

  Political Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  29

  Brussels

  Political Committee (reserve date—tbc)

  93

  European calendar: July to December 1997

  Venue

  Event

  October 1997

  1–2

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  2

  Luxembourg

  Telecommunications Council

  3–4

  Echternach

  Internal Market Council (Informal)

  6–7

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  7

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  9

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  9–10

  Mondorf

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  10–11

  Strasbourg

  Council of Europe Summit

  13

  Luxembourg

  Ecofin Council

  16

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  16

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  16–17

  Luxembourg

  Possible European Council

  20–21

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  20–21

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  20–24

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  24–27

  Edinburgh

  CHOGM

  25–26

  Mondorf

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  30

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  November 1997

  3

  Brussels

  Consumer Council

  3

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  5–6

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  10

  Brussels

  Research Council

  10

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  13

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  17

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  17

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  17–21

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  19

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (tbc)

  20

  Brussels

  Education Council

  21

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  24

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  27

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  28

  Brussels

  Development Council

  December 1997

  1

  Brussels

  Econfin Council

  1

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  2

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  3–4

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  4

  Brussels

  Health Council

  4–5

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  8

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  8–9

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10–11

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  12–13

  Luxembourg

  European Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  15–19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16–17

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  18–19

  Copenhagen

  OSCE Ministerial Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

PRIME MINISTER

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he took to investigate the allegations made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) against the right hon. Member for Caerphilly. (Mr. Davies). [6260]

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Prime Minister what investigations he carried out and with whom he spoke prior to writing to the Leader of the Opposition on 26 June concerning matters relating to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). [6261]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the replies I gave to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), on Wednesday 25 June,Official Report, columns 837–38.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mis-selling of Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will review the charging to policyholder funds of the costs of mis-selling of pensions by insurance companies. [3304]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: The Department has been in regular contact with all life insurance companies on a number of issues arising from pensions mis-selling, including the attribution of costs.

  In October 1994, in the light of SIB's publication of criteria and procedures for assessing whether compensation should be paid to individual pension policyholders, the Department made clear that each company would need to consider where the costs should fall on its funds; and indicated that, while the precise arrangements would vary according to the circumstances of each office, the Department considered the following general principles to be relevant:
  (i) With profits funds which, in normal circumstances, stand to profit front the sale of pensions business can reasonably be expected to bear a corresponding share of the costs associated with that business.

  However,
  (ii) Compensation costs should not be regarded as a normal expense of the business for the purpose of assessing bonus rates; and
  (iii) The Department would expect proprietary offices to consider whether it is appropriate that sonic part of the compensation cost be met from outside the long-term fund, to enable the reasonable expectations of policyholders to be fulfilled.

  The overall objective of this guidance was to minimise the risk that the costs of compensation would have an adverse effect on the levels of bonus paid to policyholders.

  The Insurance Companies Act 1982 gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene in individual companies' affairs, to protect policyholders against the risk that the company may be unable to meet its liabilities, or —in the case of life and pensions business—fulfil the reasonable expectation of policyholders. The Department stands ready to use these powers, though on current evidence it

  95
  believes that their use to impose a particular attribution of the costs of pensions mis-selling is likely to be justified only in exceptional cases.

  Toys (Imports)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she intends to abandon the use of the CE mark as an indicator of the safety of imported toys. [5168]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The CE marking is not a European mark of safety or quality intended for consumers. Its purpose is to indicate to enforcement authorities that the toys bearing it are intended for sale in the European Community and signifies a declaration by the manufacturer or his authorised representative that the toys have been designed and manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the relevant European directives. All toys supplied in the United Kingdom, whether manufactured here or imported, must comply with the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1995 which implement the European requirements and trading standards officers have the necessary powers to remove non-complying toys from the market.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the annual cost to the Government of subsidies to the defence industry per person employed on defence-related work in each of the last three years. [4751]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]: It is not possible to answer the question in the way posed because the Government do not provide subsidies to the defence industry. However, the Department and others, through our on-going sponsorship activities, support and encourage the competitiveness of the industry as it does to a whole range of sectors.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will assess the advantages of requiring auditors criticised in her Department's inspectors' reports to bear part of the costs. [4826]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 25 June 1997]: The role of Companies Act inspectors is to investigate rather than to perform a judicial function of apportioning blame. It would therefore not he possible to recover costs from any party criticised by Companies Act inspectors. Inspectors' reports can be and often are the basis of subsequent action by the Department or by other prosecutors and/or regulators. Under section 439(2) of the Companies Act 1985 a person who is convicted on a prosecution initiated as a result of the investigation may be ordered to pay all or some of the costs of that investigation.

  Resort Hotels
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will investigate the affairs of the auditors of Resort Hotels and the recognised supervisory body which licensed and monitored the quality of audits. [4857]
  96
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 25 June 1997]: The regulation of auditors is a matter for their recognised supervisory body to whom any complaints should be made. The Department's powers of investigation are broadly directed towards limited liability companies and to persons carrying on investment business, rather than the affairs of auditors.

  Insolvency Regulators
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will assess the advantages of replacing the present regulators of insolvency with a single independent regulator. [4823]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 25 June 1997]: As the hon. Member will be aware, a working party has been established to consider whether there are ways in which regulation of the insolvency profession might be made more effective in the public interest. The working party intends to issue a draft report by way of a consultation document in the autumn and will clearly welcome responses from all those with an interest in insolvency. I shall give careful consideration to any recommendations the working party may make in its final report.

  Helene Clothing Company Inquiry
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to announce the result of her Department's inquiry into the affairs of the clothing company, Helene. [6060]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My Department does not discuss the affairs of individual companies.

  Fraud
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will extend the requirement to detect and report fraud placed on local authority and bank auditors to other private sector auditors. [5973]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no plans to do so.

  Guidance on the rights and duties of auditors required to report to regulators in the financial sector was set out in the Auditing Practices Board's (APB) "Statement of Auditing Standards" (SAS) 620, issued in March 1994 and revised in March 1995. The APB has published two further SASs that clarify the rights and duties of auditors when reporting fraud or any other non-compliance with regulations. These are SAS 110: Fraud and Error and SAS 120: Consideration of Law and Regulations. Copies of these documents are available for inspection in the Library of the House.

  Telecommunications
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's position towards a European Union universal service in telecommunications. [6106]

  Mrs. Roche
  The draft EC directive on the application of open network provision to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications is scheduled to come into force on I January 1998. The directive defines
  97
  universal service as a defined minimum set of services of specified quality which is available to all users independent of their geographical location and, in the light of specific national conditions, at an affordable price. The Government are keen to ensure that EC universal service obligations guarantee consumers a good quality service at an affordable price, whilst not imposing unreasonable burdens on new entrants to the EC telecommunications market.

  Regulations
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the regulations laid by her before the House since 1 May. [5997]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 June 1997]: My Department has laid one set of regulations—the British Coal Corporation (Change of Quorum) Regulations—which were laid on 26 June.

  Ariane Mission
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had with the European Space Agency on the rescue of the Ariane 5 Cluster Mission of June 1996; and if she will make a statement. [4636]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 30 June 1997]: I took the opportunity of my visit to the Paris air show on 17 June to hold an introductory discussion with the senior management of the European Space Agency. I was very encouraged by the approach being taken by the agency in maintaining excellence in space research and development, while focusing on the competitiveness of European industry and increasing further the value the UK and other member states gain from their investment in ESA. I look forward to working with the new Director General of ESA, Mr. Rodota.

  The failure of the first Ariane 5 launch in June 1996 was a severe blow to the European space community and to scientists, many of whom are in the UK, planning to work on data from the four Cluster satellites. I am therefore very pleased that ESA has been able to gain approval for a recovery mission in the year 2000, this time using a Soyuz launch.

  ESA and its member states have also made a splendid effort in reorganising their space programmes to cover the cost of the launch failure. The successful launch of Ariane 502, now planned for September, will clearly be of the utmost importance for Europe's space capability.

  CJD Litigation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the legal costs incurred to date by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the Medical Research Council in respect of CJD litigation. [6083]
  98
  Mr. Battle
  The total legal costs incurred to date by the Medical Research Council in relation to the litigation, including the costs of the Treasury Solicitor, amount to almost £49,000.

  Industrial Pollution
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment she has made of the risk of extra industrial pollution elsewhere in the world as a result of tighter emission controls in the United Kingdom; [5841]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of tighter controls on industrial emissions than elsewhere in the world on the numbers of (a) job losses, (b) factory closures and (c) bankruptcies in the United Kingdom. [5842]

  Mr. Battle
  In recognition of this risk, the UK seeks the greatest possible international participation in environmental agreements, both to maximise the potential environmental benefits and to minimise any risks to our competitiveness that might arise. Studies by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have not so far identified evidence of significant industrial migration to countries with lower environmental standards.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teacher Training Recruitment
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the advice on teacher training recruitment targets received by his Department from the Teacher Training Agency for 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [5700]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 27 June 1997]: The targets are the responsibility of the Department. The TTA has not in the past been invited to submit advice to the Department on the whole range of issues involved, but on occasion we have discussed particular aspects—such as the necessary assumptions on course length and wastage—with Agency staff. The Select Committee on Education and Employment, in its sixth report, recommended that TTA be given a greater role in advising the Department on the staffing model and training targets and that its advice about them should he made public. The Government's response will be published shortly.

  Unemployed Teachers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the availability of full-time posts for unemployed teachers in(a) the Northern region and (b) the Teesside area. [5964]
  99
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the number of full-time vacancies as at January 1997 in each Local Education Authority in the North East region. Teesside TEC area is covered by Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton on Tees.

  Total vacancies1

  North-cast Region2

  73

  Gateshead

  10

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6

  North Tyneside

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  Sunderland

  17

  Hartlepool

  7

  Middlesbrough

  4

  Redcur and Cleveland

  8

  Stockton on Tees

  14

  Durham

  7

  Northumberland

  0

  Source:

  618g survey.

  Notes:

  1 The total shown covers full-time vacancies in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  2 Government Office region.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of people in Blackpool aged 17 to 25 years are currently claiming the jobseeker's allowance. [5945]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is not possible to provide the precise information as requested but I can confirm that in April 1997 there were 1,283 people aged between 17 and 24 who were receiving JSA. It is not possible to give an unemployment rate for particular age groups. I can confirm that the unemployment rate for all age groups for the North West, based on May 1997 information, is 5.3 per cent.

  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review the operation of the jobseeker's allowance with particular reference to the impact of the six-month rule on those seeking or involved in seasonal employment in the leisure and tourist industries. [5954]

  Mr. Howarth
  Our Welfare to Work objectives are to provide work incentives, to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to strike a new balance between rights and responsibilities. A programme of monitoring and evaluation is under way to enable us to ensure that Jobseeker's Allowance contributes to achieving our objectives. In addition to this major evaluation exercise, we shall also keep the individual benefit rules under active consideration as we develop our plans.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the funding of the National Qualification for Head Teachers so as to take account of schools' financial ability to make contributions. [5950]
  100
  Mr. Byers
  The Government is supporting candidates from LEA-maintained schools taking the National Professional Qualification for Headship with £4.5 million in 1997–98 through the Grants for Education Support and Training programme. This funding is allocated to LEAs on the basis of the number of schools in their area; central support for candidates is not dependent on the financial ability of their school to make contributions.

  Primary Class Sizes
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the(a) average and (b) maximum numbers of children in primary school classes in East Sussex. [5956]

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

  The information in Table 2 puts into context the information on maximum class sizes in Table 1.

  Table 1: Average and maximum class size taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the East Sussex Local Education Authority area in January 1997 (provisional estimates)

  Average class size

  Maximum size class

  East Sussex

  28.2

  36

  Table 2: Numbers of classes and pupils by class size for classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the East Sussex Local Education Authority area in January 1997 (provisional estimates)

  Size of class

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  1–20

  133

  2,044

  21–30

  959

  25,676

  31–35

  695

  22,574

  36–40

  21

  756

  41 or more

  0

  0

  Total

  1,808

  51,050

  School Performance Targets
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the presentation of statistics for primary and secondary school performance to give greater prominence to the progress made over a three year period by the schools concerned. [5946]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I announced on 25 June that the secondary school performance tables to be published this November will show schools performance over the last three years. Primary tables will be published locally by LEAs in January. LEAs will be able to publish information on school improvement alongside the core data. We are also working to include measures of value added in the performance tables of 1998 data.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his oral answer,Official Report, column 965, to the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) of 26 June, by how much the

  101
  projected savings from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme fall short of the cost of reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. [6241]

  Mr. Byers
  About £100 million will have been saved from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme by the year 2000, and annually thereafter the savings will be in excess of £100 million a year. That is adequate funding to fulfil our pledge to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds by the end of this Parliament.

  Wakefield Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial resources were made available to Wakefield Training and Enterprise Council in respect of the pit closure programme in Wakefield district; and what reports he has received on the use of those resources. [5051]

  Dr. Howells
  Over the last four years over £6 million has been made available to Wakefield Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) as part of the agreed "Coal Plan" to assist in areas affected by the closures of collieries. Of this over £4.5 million has been paid directly to the TEC, and the balance has been available to fund allowances to support unemployed adults attending additional Training for Work provision organised by the TEC. Other Government funding available to the TEC will also have benefited former mining areas. Wakefield TEC commissioned PRISM Research to undertake a full independent evaluation of its activities under Coal Plan Funding. The findings were published in a series of reports published in April and May 1997 and copies have been received by Government Office York and Humberside officials. Conclusions were generally positive.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he took to evaluate the record of Wakefield training and enterprise council, in working with relevant local bodies and the voluntary sector. [5052]

  Dr. Howells
  Wakefield TEC's record of working with local bodies has been formally evaluated within the context of the TEC Licensing process, and more generally within the TEC annual planning and contracting round. Wakefield TEC was awarded a Licence to run from three years from April 1995, and as part of this was found to be fully competent in its ability to work with local partners to develop and implement a shared agenda, which is a key element of the licensing process. The TEC annual re-contracting evaluation process covers all aspects of the TEC's capacity to work with partners. Wakefield TEC is a founder member of and plays a key role in the Wakefield Economic Alliance and also plays a key role in the Wakefield Partnership which includes representatives from the business, voluntary and education sectors.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the annual budget for Wakefield training and enterprise council in the last year for which figures are available, provided by public funds; what additional training, education and employment placements were created as a result of this funding; and if he will make a statement. [5113]
  102
  Dr. Howells
  Wakefield TEC's annual budget for 1996–97 was £8,602,358. A total of 3,643 young people/adults secured training placements as part of Youth Programmes (YP) and Training for Work (TFW) in 1996–97. Information is not available about the total number of employment placements, although all young people within the YP will undertake work experience, and work placements also form an integral part of TFW. There were 302 Modern Apprenticeship starts during 1996–97, and a total of 1,069 NVQs were gained by Youth Trainees (60 NVQs per 100 leavers). One thousand and forty two adults leaving TEW secured employment, resulting in Wakefield TEC achieving an average of 50 jobs per 100 leavers.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the annual budget for Training and Enterprise Councils provided from public funds in the last year for which figures are available; and what quality audit mechanisms are employed to monitor their efficiency and value for money. [5112]

  Dr. Howells
  The budget provided by this Department for Training and Enterprise Councils in England in 1996–97 is provisionally estimated to be £1.2 billion.

  A range of mechanisms are in place to monitor efficiency and promote value for money. Government Offices negotiate and monitor key performance targets. They also assess the effectiveness of each TEC's financial control environment to ensure public money is properly protected. In addition, the TEC Quality Assurance: Supplier Management (TQA: ASM) framework sets out the quality requirements which the Department places on TECs and which it requires TECs to make of their suppliers. The Department is also considering proposals to establish an inspectorate that would assess the quality of Government funded training provision.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what powers he has in relation to appointments to the boards of TECs. [5826]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's contract with Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) sets eligibility conditions that TEC directors must meet. However, TECs are private companies and the appointment of directors to TEC boards is determined by the members of the company acting in accordance with the company's Articles of Association. It is for each TEC to decide on its own membership in accordance with its contract with government and the TEC National Council's "Framework for local Accountability of TECs" which has as its first principle clarity and openness in the selection of well qualified and trained board members.

  Research Assessment Exercise
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the research assessment exercise in higher education establishments. [6139]

  Dr. Howells
  None. The research assessment exercise is a matter for the higher education funding bodies, which are currently reviewing the conduct and outcome of the 1996 exercise. I understand that they intend to consult on future options in the light of any relevant
  103
  recommendations from the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, which is expected to report shortly.

  Museums
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will ensure that the Higher Education Funding Council's criteria for making funding awards to university museums are published; [6306]

  (2) what proposals he has to co-ordinate policy with the Scottish Office and the Department of National Heritage with regard to the funding of university museums; and if he will make a statement; [6307]

  (3) what proposals he has to review the criteria by which the Higher Education Funding Council allocates funds to university museums; [6310]

  (4) if he will list the university museums which receive funds from the Higher Education Funding Council, stating in each case how much each museum has received in the last five financial years and how much it will receive in future financial years for which funding has been determined; [6316]

  (5) if he will list the museums in England and Wales which receive non-formula funding from the Higher Education Council. [6318]

  Dr. Howells
  Most university museums are funded by their parent universities. In addition the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) provides "non-formula funding" in support of a number of university museums of national importance. These are listed in HEFCE Circular 9/95, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The HEFCE reviewed its non-formula funding of museums in 1993 and 1994 and announced its decisions in March 1995. The criteria for funding were published in HEFCE Circulars 5/93, 46/93 and 9/95, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Circular 9/95 listed the amounts that each museum would receive in 1995–96 and announced the Council's decision that, on the recommendation of its Museums. Galleries and Collections Review Group, the distribution of non-formula funding in respect of university museums would not be reviewed for at least five years. Funding allocations in support of university museums before 1995–96 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department for Education and Employment, the other Education Departments and the Department of National Heritage work together closely on policy for funding university museums. Funding of university museums in Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales respectively.

  Social Costs and Employment
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish his Department's response to the Education and Employment Committee's fourth report, on Social Costs and Employment (HC 130) of Session 1996–97. [6462]
  104
  Mr Alan Howarth
  I welcome the Committee's report. The Department's response is being placed today in the Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  Private Secretary
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what are the main duties and responsibilities of his private secretary; and if he will make a statement. [6169]

  Mr. Mandelson
  My private secretary supports me in carrying out my Ministerial responsibilities for contributing to and implementing Government policy and driving forward the Millennium Experience at Greenwich.

TREASURY

  Stillbirths
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many stillbirths there were in each region of the United Kingdom in 1996. [2158]

  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 1 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your question on the number of stillbirths in each region of the United Kingdom.
  The information for health regions of England and Wales is available in ONS Monitor Series DH3 97/1: Infant and perinatal mortality 1996: Health authorities and regional offices. This publication is available in the House of Commons Library. Similar information for the health regions of Scotland and Northern Ireland is shown on the following table:

  Numbers of stillbirths in Health Regions of Scotland, Northern Ireland 1996

  Number

  Health Board Areas—Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  33

  Ayrshire and Arran

  28

  Borders

  7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  Fife

  26

  Forth Valley

  18

  Grampian

  42

  Greater Glasgow

  69

  Highland

  15

  Lanarkshire

  43

  Lothian

  51

  Orkney

  —

  Shetland

  1

  Tayside

  33

  Western Isles

  2

  Health and Social Services Boards—Northern Ireland (Provisional)

  Eastern

  59

  Northern

  32

  Southern

  30

  Western

  34

  Source:

  General Register Office Scotland.

  General Register Office Northern Ireland.

  Inland Revenue Chairman
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will be the next chairman of the Inland Revenue; and what criteria will be used to determine this appointment. [3366]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Mr. Nicholas Montagu CB has been appointed chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. The criteria for selection were set out in the public advertisement for the post, a copy of which has been placed in the Members' Library.

  Cross-border Shopping
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of the duty revenues lost as a result of cross-border shopping for, and smuggling of,(a) cigarettes, (b) hand rolling tobacco, (c) beer, (d) wine and (e) spirits. [3544]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Custom's latest estimate of excise duty paid alcohol and tobacco products is for the year ending 30 june 1996, and is given in table 1, and for smuggling is given in table 2.

  Table 1: Revenue losses from cross border shopping

  £million

  Product type

  Excise duty

  Beer

  25

  Wine

  75

  Spirits

  45

  Tobacco products

  55

  Total

  200

  Figures have been independently rounded to £5 million. Figures assume that 50 per cent. of alcohol purchased is additional consumption. Customs have no separate estimates of the revenue losses for individual types of tobacco products.

  Table 2: Revenue evaded through smuggling

  £ million

  Product type

  Excise duty

  Beer

  75

  Wine

  35

  Spirits

  40

  Hand-rolling tobacco

  335

  Cigarettes and other tobacco products

  110

  Total

  590

  Figures have been, independently rounded to £5 million. Components may not therefore sum to the totals given.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the VAT income which would accrue from VAT on fuel at(a) 5 per cent., (b) 7½ per cent., (c) 10 per cent. and (d) 12½ per cent., and the cost of the subsidy to retirement pensioners and other vulnerable groups at those levels. [3510]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated full-year cost, in 1997–98, of reducing VAT on domestic fuel and power from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. is around £450 million: estimates for the other options can be approximated pro rata.

  Fuel (VAT)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the reduction in the total annual amount of VAT on fuel paid by pensioners in the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland as a result of the proposed reduction in the rate of VAT to 5 per cent. [5563]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on household consumption of fuel and power is not available at constituency level. The average household would save £18 per year from a reduction in VAT on domestic fuel and power from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent., pensioners will benefit most in proportion to income.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what stamp duty is on share transactions in(a) Germany, (b) France and (c) The United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made of the impact of differential stamp duties on share transactions on the competitiveness of the City of London. [3624]

  Dawn Primarolo
  UK stamp duty on share transfers is generally charged at 0.5 per cent. In certain circumstances—for example, a transfer of shares into a depositary receipt scheme—the rate of duty is 1.5 per cent.

  In France a stock exchange turnover tax is charged on both purchases and sales of shares. The tax is charged at 0.3 per cent. of the price up to FF 1 million, and 0.15 per cent., on any excess of over FF 21 million. The amount of tax is then reduced by FF 150. The maximum tax on a transaction is FF 4,000. There is also a 1 per cent. registration tax on deeds relating to the transfer of company shares, up to a FF 20,000 maximum.

  There is no share transfer tax in Germany.

  Stamp duties on share transactions do not affect the competitiveness of the City of London.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of assessments and the revenue derived from stamp duty on property transactions in each band of £5,000 between £60,000 and £100,000 in the latest convenient year. [3444]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates for 1995–96 are as follows:

  Price of transactions

  Number of property transactions (thousands)

  Value of stamp duty (£ million)

  £60,000 to under £65,000

  50

  30

  £65,000 to under £70,000

  55

  35

  £70,000 to under £75,000

  45

  30

  £75,000 to under £80,000

  40

  30

  £80,000 to under £85,000

  35

  25

  £85,000 to under £90,000

  30

  25

  £90,000 to under £95,000

  25

  20

  £95,000 to under £100,000

  20

  20

  Total1

  295

  225

  1 Totals may not be the sum of the figures shown because of rounding.

  107
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the yield of stamp duty reserve tax has been in each tax year since its inception. [3448]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures are as follows:

  Stamp duty reserve tax receipts (£ million)

  1986–87

  44.2

  1987–88

  103.9

  1988–89

  64.2

  1989–90

  82.2

  1990–91

  73.4

  1991–92

  100.5

  1992–93

  48.0

  1993–94

  59.5

  1994–95

  42.4

  1995–96

  44.7

  1996–971

  310.0

  1 Provisional.

  The sharp rise in 1996–97 reflects the switch to electronic share transfers following the introduction of the CREST system and the consequent rise in transactions liable to stamp duty reserve tax rather than to stamp duty.

  Leaded petrol

  Unleaded petrol

  Beer at 4 per cent. abv

  Excise duty (pence per litre)

  VAT (per cent.)

  Excise duty (pence per litre)

  VAT (per cent.)

  Excise duty (£ sterling per hectolitre)

  VAT (per cent.)

  Austria

  n/a

  20.00

  29.73

  20.00

  11.94

  20.00

  Belgium

  40.57

  21.00

  36.69

  21.00

  14.09

  21.00

  Denmark

  n/a

  25.00

  31.94

  25.00

  28.34

  25.00

  Finland

  n/a

  22.00

  38.45

  22.00

  95.31

  22.00

  France

  44.15

  20.60

  41.18

  20.60

  8.44

  20.60

  Germany

  39.63

  15.00

  35.96

  15.00

  6.44

  15.00

  Greece

  28.79

  18.00

  25.05

  18.00

  10.22

  18.00

  Ireland

  32.77

  21.00

  29.22

  21.00

  64.14

  21.00

  Italy

  40.88

  19.00

  37.60

  19.00

  11.35

  10.00

  Luxembourg

  28.66

  15.00

  24.92

  12.00

  6.52

  15.00

  Netherlands

  42.43

  17.50

  37.77

  17.50

  13.17

  17.50

  Portugal

  35.90

  17.00

  33.41

  17.00

  9.28

  17.00

  Spain

  33.42

  16.00

  25.74

  16.00

  6.36

  16.00

  Sweden

  n/a

  25.00

  34.72

  25.00

  55.96

  25.00

  UK

  41.68

  17.50

  36.86

  17.5

  43.28

  17.50

  Comparable figures for cigarettes are not available.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of taxpayers currently claiming tax relief for private medical insurance are over retirement age. [3628]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 1994–95, the latest year for which information is available, it is estimated that about three-quarters of the individuals covered by private medical insurance contracts on which tax relief is claimed are over retirement age, that is, men aged 65 or over.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people currently benefit from tax relief on medical insurance. [3520]
  108
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much stamp duty payable on house purchases was received from sales(a) at or above £200,000 and (b) at or above 375,000 in each of the last five years. [3774]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 June 1997]: Available estimates are as follows:

  Stamp duty on residential property transactions1

  (£ million)

  (a) At or above £200,000

  (b) At or above £375,000

  1991–92

  85

  30

  1992–93

  50

  25

  1993–94

  85

  30

  1994–95

  95

  35

  1995–96

  90

  30

  1 Figures exclude non-residential transactions which are also liable to stamp duty.

  Taxation and Duty
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list on a comparable basis the levels of taxation and duty on(a) petrol, (b) cigarettes and (c) beer in each of the EU member states. [3550]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested for petrol and beer is given in the table.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax payers are currently claiming tax relief in respect of private medical insurance. [3629]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 13 March 1997,Official Report, column 322.

  Single Currency
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations have been undertaken by Treasury Ministers and officials with the banking and retail industries, and the accountancy profession, on the preparations for the introduction of a single currency. [3530]
  109
  Mrs. Liddell
  Treasury Ministers and officials meet regularly with representatives of the banking, retail and accounting sectors to discuss a wide range of issues.

  The Bank of England has been involved in consultations with the financial sector on a number of issues surrounding the implications of the introduction of a European single currency. The Bank provides information, primarily targeted at the financial sector, through the publication of a quarterly bulletin entitled "The Practical Issues Arising from the Introduction of the Euro".

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the cost to the Government of the introduction of a European single currency. [3539]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government will assess the implications of EMU for jobs, investment and growth in the United Kingdom. In making that assessment, the cost to Government of joining EMU is one of many aspects which will be taken into account.

  Demand Elasticity
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the elasticity of demand for(a) unleaded petrol, (b) cigarettes, and (c) beer. [3545]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated own price elasticities, based on a computer model produced by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, are -0.272, -0.201, and -0.963 for petrol, tobacco and beer respectively.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the estimated reductions in weekly household income in each household income decile group which would result from the withdrawal of mortgage interest relief. [3562]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information for 1997–98 is given in the table. The estimates are based on information projected from the 1994–95 family expenditure survey and are therefore provisional.

  Average weekly reduction in households income1 as a result of withdrawing mortgage interest relief

  Household income decile group

  Average weekly reduction for households with a mortgage £

  Lowest ten per cent.

  2—

  Second

  1.30

  Third

  2.30

  Fourth

  3.70

  Fifth

  4.50

  Sixth

  4.60

  Seventh

  4.90

  Eighth

  5.00

  Ninth

  5.00

  Highest ten per cent.

  5.20

  1 Household income is defined as income from all sources less income tax payments and National Insurance contributions.

  2 Insufficient data to provide a reliable estimate.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the impact on retirement pensioners of reducing VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. [3552]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The average household would save £18 per year from a reduction in VAT on domestic fuel and power from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent., pensioners will benefit most in proportion to income.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the financial impact on the average household of a reduction in the rate of VAT levied on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. [3682]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The average household would benefit by £18 per year from a reduction in VAT on domestic fuel and power from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent.

  Inland Revenue Offices
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the network of Inland Revenue offices; and if he will make a statement. [3548]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has now completed four years of its 10 year programme to restructure its network of local offices. Ministers together with the Board of Inland Revenue are currently considering how to take the programme forward.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the terms of the leases of Inland Revenue offices which are undergoing closure; and what penalty clauses will apply if the new office structure plan goes ahead. [4903]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has offices in hundreds of buildings throughout the United Kingdom. Some buildings are Crown property, others are leasehold and the terms of each occupation are the subject of separate negotiation and agreement. The costs, including any penalties for vacating premises ahead of lease breaks are always fully taken into account as part of the overall appraisal.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the conclusions of the new office structure plan phase 3 for Inland Revenue offices will be published; and if he will make a statement. [4904]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has embarked on a major programme of change which includes restructuring its local office network over a number of years. The restructuring programme, which is scheduled to take 10 years to complete, is now in its fifth year. Ministers are currently considering with the Board of the Inland Revenue how to take the programme forward.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Inland Revenue offices have been refurbished; and what has been the total cost to public funds under the inland Revenue new office structure plan of the(a) closure and (b) transfer of offices. [4907]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's programme to restructure its network of local offices was designed to be implemented in three stages from January 1993 to around 2002. When implementation of the second stage is completed during 1998, some 167 new-style offices will have replaced 387 old-style offices. The total cost of
  111
  setting up these 167 new-style offices, all of which will be in new or refurbished accommodation, will be £107 million. Set against these costs, the programme will have delivered running cost savings reaching £35 million per annum in 1997–98 rising to about £50 million per annum by 2002.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the savings and costs identified under the Inland Revenue new office structure plan phase 3 in respect of the(a) Penzance, (b) Launceston, (c) Barnstaple and Bideford, (d) Truro, (e) Torquay, Newton Abbot and Paignton, (f) Wells, (g) Frome and (h) Bridgewater offices; and if he will list the criteria used in each office to identify costs and savings. [4906]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has embarked on a major programme of change which includes restructuring its local office network over a number of years. The restructuring programme, which is scheduled to take 10 years to complete, is now in its fifth year. Ministers are currently considering with the Board of Inland Revenue how to take the programme forward. A full investment appraisal in accordance with normal Treasury rules will be required before detailed individual proposals can he considered for approval.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposals contained in the new office structure plan phase 3 currently before the Board of Inland Revenue can proceed in instances where changes produce negative savings. [4905]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has embarked on a major programme of change which includes restructuring its local office network over a number of years. The programme, which is scheduled to take 10 years to complete, is now in its fifth year. At the outset, the Board of Inland Revenue agreed with Ministers that the overall programme should deliver a high rate of financial return.

  Tax Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Inland Revenue tax offices which are currently the subject of consideration for closure under the New Office Structure Review No.3. [3372]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since 1993, the Inland Revenue has been carrying out a 10-year programme to reorganise its whole network of local offices. I have now asked the Revenue to review all of the proposed reorganisations which would result in closure of the only local office.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names of right hon. and hon. Members who have made written, oral or personal representations to his Department in the last 12 months about tax offices which are included in the New Office Structure Review No. 3. [3371]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since 1993, the inland Revenue has been carrying out a 10-year programme to reorganise its whole network of local offices. Firm plans exist for the period up to mid 1998 and proposals for the remaining period are currently being considered by the Board of Inland Revenue. A large number of Members made 112
  representations in the present Session and in 1996–97 regarding offices which will be included in the final stage of the reorganisation programme.

  Drug Imports
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the numbers of customs officers directly engaged in duties relating to the import of drugs. [3546]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no plans to increase the number of customs officers directly engaged in duties relating to the smuggling of illicit drugs.

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the most recent reduction in capital allowances on the level of investment by industry. [3704]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is too early to judge the impact of the legislation on investment.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated loss of tax revenue resulting from the special treatment of company cars. [3702]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No estimates of revenue effects can be made without details of what is meant by their special treatment.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received from the Inland Revenue revised estimates for tax receipts for 1997–98 taking into account the higher than forecast tax receipts for 1996–97. [3362]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes, the next published forecast will be on 2 July in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost has been of Inland Revenue publicity in support of the move to self-assessment. [3440]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since the launch of the self assessment public information programme in June 1995 about £15,000,000 has been spent informing taxpayers of the changes.

  VAT (Holidays)
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to public funds of reducing VAT on domestic holidays to the level in France. [3556]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No figures on the revenue generated from VAT on domestic holidays are currently available.

  Company and Shareholder Taxation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to abolish the imputation system of company and shareholder taxation. [3625]
  113
  Dawn Primarolo
  It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage.

  VAT
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on extending the scope of VAT to(a) new housing and (b) fares for international travel. [3701]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to comment on tax matters in advance of the Budget.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria determine which items of play equipment, fixtures and fittings purchased for the use of children with special needs are exempted from VAT. [5587]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 June 1997]: There is no general provision for VAT relief on play equipment, fixtures and fittings used by children with special needs. Equipment, including play equipment, fixtures and fittings, is zero-rated if it has been designed solely for use by chronically sick or disabled people including children, provided that it is supplied to such people, charities, serving their needs, and certain other eligible bodies which pay for the goods wholly from charitable funds or with voluntary contributions.

  Excise Duty
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of each excise duty, other than VAT, is payable by businesses and is recoverable as a business cost. [3447]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Excise duties are not normally recoverable by businesses. The exceptions include when goods on which duty has been paid are exported or returned to the manufacturer, for example because they are contaminated. In addition businesses may receive duty paid goods, principally hydrocarbon oils, which are relieved of duty when used for eligible purposes and on which a refund of duty can be claimed.

  Mergers
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages of merging the Inland Revenue, the Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency; and if he will make a statement. [3532]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A programme of closer working between Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency has been developed since 1994. We intend to develop further this programme in support of Government objectives.

  Corporate Groups
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to spend to save initiatives in respect of large corporate groups. [3623]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The spend to save initiatives being implemented by Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise include a range of measures for improving compliance, covering both large corporate taxpayers and other taxpayers.

  Political Appointees
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the additional cost resulting from the increase in the numbers of political advisers since 1 May; [3318]

  (2) what has been the additional cost resulting from the increase in sin of the Prime Minister's Policy Unit since 1 May. [3319]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which the Prime Minister gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier),Official Report, column 25.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 146, if he will make a statement setting out how closer working between Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue will be developed; and what are the manpower and financial implications of each of these proposals. [3332]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The closer working programme has been continually developed since its introduction. Where initiatives have manpower or financial implications these are being contained within existing spending plans.

  Policy Making
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms he will put in place to ensure that environmental sustainability considerations are taken into account in the policy-making process within his Department. [3853]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Our manifesto stated, "We will put concern for the environment at the heart of policy-making, so that it is not an add-on extra, but informs the whole of government." Like other departments, the Treasury is committed to delivering that commitment. I shall, as the Minister with the lead on environment issues for the Treasury, be taking a close interest in ensuring that we do so.

  Discretionary Trusts
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many discretionary trusts benefiting minors are in operation; [4029]

  (2) what is the value of (a) the highest and (b) the lowest decile of discretionary trusts benefiting minors. [4028]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will request the NAO to provide an annual report to the Committee of Public Accounts on their review of the assumptions behind the economic forecast. [4186]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Comptroller and Auditor General, as Head of the NAO, was asked to review the key assumptions and conventions for projecting the public finances. His report was published as a Command Paper on Thursday 19 June. Copies a the report are available
  115
  from the Vote Office. The Government intend that, in future Budgets, there will be a continuing role for the NAO in auditing the process of forecasting the public finances.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the assumptions behind the economic forecast which will be submitted to the NAO for review. [4185]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The NAO was asked to review the following assumptions and conventions for projecting the public finances:Credit will only be taken for privatisation proceeds from sales that have already been announced.
  The estimate of savings generated by the "Spend to Save" programme announced in the November 1996 Budget will be limited to the direct effects of the measures, and will exclude indirect impacts such as the deterrent effect of the programme.
  The assumed underlying rate of growth of the economy will be 2¼ per cent. per year.
  A flat planning assumption for unemployment will be used rather than forecasts of actual unemployment.
  Assumptions for the level of interest rates will be derived from expectations in financial markets.

  The NAO report was published as a Command Paper on Thursday 19 June. Copies of the report are available from the Vote Office.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 June,Official Report, columns 1261–62, if the Treasury will account for revenue accruing from the windfall tax on a deferred income basis spread over the whole Parliament. [4073]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce details of the windfall tax in his Budget Statement.

  Travel Insurance
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current rate of tax levied on travel insurance sold by(a) a bank, (b) a newsagent and (c) a travel agent. [4594]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under provisions introduced in the last Budget, with effect from 1 April 1997 travel insurance sold by a travel agent is subject to insurance premium tax (IPT) at a rate of 17.5 per cent. Travel insurance sold by a bank or newsagent is normally liable to IPT at a rate of 4 per cent.

  Duty Free Shopping
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards the European Commission's proposal to end duty free shopping and if he will make a statement. [4061]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 19 June 1997]: The Government have no objection to looking at the impact of the end of the regime. But the legal commitment is to abolish duty free shopping for intra EU travel by 30 June 1999.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of cot deaths in England and Wales in (i) 1994, (i) 1995 and (iii) 1996. [5959]

  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. Ronnie Fearn, dated 1 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to your recent parliamentary question on the rate of cot deaths in England and Wales.
  The information for 1994 and 1995 is available in ONS Monitor Series DH3 96/2 Sudden infant deaths, 1991–1995. This publication is available in the House of Commons Library. Information for 1996 will be published in August 1997.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each person advising or assisting his Department who has(a) membership of and (b) involvement in (i) the European Round Table of industrialists, (ii) the European Centre for Infrastructure Studies, (iii) the Competitiveness Advisory Group, (iv) Transatlantic Business Dialogue, (v) the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe, (vi) Union of industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe, (vii) Europa Bio and (viii) the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. [5308]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am advised that no civil servant or special adviser in the Chancellor's Departments is either a member of, or directly involved in, any of these bodies. Treasury Ministers and officials do, however, have contacts with many different organisations, including some of those listed, in the course of their work. It would be impracticable to maintain a database of all the organisations and individuals with whom contact is maintained.

  Green Taxes
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Tax-benefit Working Group's remit covers the job-creating potential of green tax reform; and if he will make a statement. [5160]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The role of green taxes is not within the remit of the task force on tax and benefits. The task force will concentrate on streamlining and modernising the tax and benefits systems so as to promote work incentives, reduce poverty and welfare dependency, and strengthen community and family life.

  Disabled People (Computer Equipment)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on current relief from VAT on computer equipment supplied to disabled people. [4377]
  117
  Dawn Primarolo
  VAT is not chargeable on the cost of adapting computer equipment so that it is easier for a disabled person to use, nor on items of equipment and software specifically designed for the disabled—for example, Braille embossers.

  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) of 2 June,Official Report, column 89, if the report to be prepared by the Inland Revenue into the tax and benefits system will consider alternative means for the taxation of married couples; [4813]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rotherham of 2 June, Official Report, column 89, if he will make it his policy not to take decisions on the future of the married couple's allowance until the review has been completed. [4801]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Martin Taylor is leading the task force on tax and benefits. He will no doubt consider whatever options can streamline and modernise the systems and so promote work incentives, reduce poverty and welfare dependency, and strengthen community and family life. The Government's policy is to take decisions which will achieve those objectives.

  Holidaymakers (Purchases Abroad)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on the United Kingdom economy of holidaymakers purchasing goods duty paid abroad. [4452]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs' latest estimate of the retail value of alcohol and tobacco products purchased duty paid in other EU member states for personal importation into the United Kingdom is given in the table. The figures shown are for the year ending 30 June 1996.

  Legitimate cross-border shopping

  £ million

  Product type

  Retail value

  Beer

  175

  Wine

  450

  Spirits

  185

  Tobacco products

  95

  Total

  905

  Figures have been independently rounded £5 million. Components may not therefore sum to the totals given.

  Customs have no estimate of the value of other goods purchased duty-paid by UK residents abroad.

  Tobacco Taxes
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised from each of the taxes payable on each category of tobacco product in the last year for which figures are available. [4506]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The amounts raised from excise duty and VAT are as shown for the financial year 1995–96.
  118

  £ million

  Duty

  VAT

  Cigarettes

  6,883

  1,570

  Cigars

  131{*B}

  Hand-rolling tobacco

  225{*B}

  140

  Other smoking and chewing tobacco

  52{*B}

  Value added tax has been estimated from Office for National Statistics figures for consumers' expenditure on tobacco.

  VAT (Plants)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to bring the VAT charged on flowering and pot plants into line with European Union norms. [5596]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have no plans to change the rate of VAT charged on flowering and pot plants. The rate of VAT charged on these goods varies significantly across the European Community.

  Firearms
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if payments made by the Government to firearms dealers under(a) the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 Compensation Scheme and (b) the ex gratia compensation scheme for small calibre pistols are subject to VAT. [5829]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes. If the dealer is registered for VAT the surrender of pistols against a payment of compensation is a taxable supply for VAT purposes.

  Fuel Duty (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have particular regard in considering any increase in duty on petrol and diesel to the impact of such measures on rural areas with low income levels and lacking public rail and road transport; and if he will make a statement. [5837]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 June 1997]: Matters such as these will be taken into account in reaching Budget decisions.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, columns 455–56 on interest rates, if he will set out the basis of his calculations and the assumptions on which his measures of real rates were based. [6063]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked hint to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 1 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your further question (6063) on interest rates following the answer which I gave on 24 June (at columns 455–6).

  119
  The original table provided was regretfully incorrect due to miscalculation. I now attach a table providing the corrected nominal and real interest rates which I hope rectifies any confusion ONS caused.
  As stated in my original letter, the real rate of interest is calculated as the nominal rate of interest adjusted by removing the growth in inflation over the 12 month period. The basis of the calculation is the base interest rate of retail banks adjusted for the change in the retail price index excluding mortgage interest payments.
  The annual rate of interest is a weighted average of the retail banks' base rate over the year. The weights are the number of days a particular interest rate is in operation.
  Real interest rates are calculated by adjusting the annual nominal rates by the change in the rate of inflation over the previous year (refer to footnote). The Bank of England also calculate real interest rates, but use indicators of future inflation rather than recorded price changes in the previous year. Latest movements are detailed in their Inflation Report.
  Once again T apologise for the inconvenience this error has caused you.

  RPI: Percentage change over 12 months

  Nominal interest rate

  All items excluding mortgage interest payment

  1Real interest rate

  1970

  7.2

  6.4

  0.8

  1971

  5.9

  9.4

  -3.2

  1972

  6.0

  7.1

  -1.1

  1973

  9.9

  9.2

  0.6

  1974

  12.3

  16.0

  -3.2

  1975

  10.4

  24.2

  -11.1

  1976

  11.1

  16.7

  -4.8

  1977

  8.9

  15.9

  -6.0

  1978

  9.1

  8.6

  0.5

  1979

  13.7

  12.6

  1.0

  1980

  16.3

  16.9

  -0.5

  1981

  13.3

  12.2

  0.9

  1982

  11.9

  8.5

  3.2

  1983

  9.8

  5.2

  4.4

  1984

  9.7

  4.5

  5.0

  1985

  12.2

  5.2

  6.7

  1986

  10.9

  3.6

  7.0

  1987

  9.7

  3.7

  5.8

  1988

  10.1

  4.6

  5.3

  1989

  13.8

  5.9

  7.5

  1990

  14.8

  8.1

  6.2

  1991

  11.7

  6.7

  4.7

  1992

  9.6

  4.7

  4.6

  1993

  6.0

  3.0

  2.9

  1994

  5.5

  2.3

  3.1

  1995

  6.7

  2.9

  3.7

  1996

  6.0

  3.0

  2.9

  1 The real interest rate = (((1+i) / (1+r))-1)* 100

  where

  = the nominal rate of interest in year t (Column 1/100)

  rt = the annual percentage change in retail prices excluding mortgage interest payments (RPIX) between year t-1 and year t (Column 2/100).

  Beer (Illegal Imports)
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the loss of income to the Exchequer from illegally imported beer. [6236]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise estimate that the total revenue (excise duty plus VAT) evaded through smuggling of beer into the UK, excluding any amounts for commercial fraud, is some £110 million per annum.

  Customs and Excise (Expenditure)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the expenditure of HM Customs and Excise in each of the last five years for which figures are available on preventing imports of child pornography and associated intelligence. [5450]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 June 1997]: Customs do not hold statistics on expenditure directly related to preventing imports of child pornography and associated intelligence. Child pornography is one of the highest priorities for Customs work in protecting society.

  Treasury Economic Brief
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the Treasury weekly economic brief. [6001]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 30 June 1997]: The Treasury is currently considering whether to make a wider range of briefing on the economy and the Government's economic policies available on its Internet site, including material from the Treasury weekly economic brief.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, at the time of the Budget Statement, he will release details of the Treasury analysis of the likely effect of a windfall tax on utility prices, investment levels, share values and employment. [5980]

  Mr Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 30 June 1997]: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce details of the windfall tax in his Budget Statement.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance upon the reduction in the unemployment figures in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales. [6138]

  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. Edward Rowlands, dated 1 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on what the effects are of the introduction of Jobseekers' Allowance (JSA) on unemployment figures for a) the UK and b) Wales.
  The measure of unemployment, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. However, largely because it is a sample survey, information is not available from the LFS in as much geographical detail as from the claimant count measure described below.
  ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the administrative system and includes all people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseekers Allowance, Income Support or National Insurance credits) at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed

  121
  on as unemployed and available to do any suitable work. Essentially, all people who attend an Employment Service office to sign are counted, irrespective of whether they are actually receiving benefit.
  There have been two main types of JSA effect on the claimant count figures:
  1. Changes to rules - the effect of the main change in the rules under JSA, to means test after 6 months rather than twelve months, is proving very difficult to disentangle from other JSA and real economy effects. The best estimate that can be provided is that this has led to around 30,000 extra claimants leaving the count in the UK since the introduction of JSA. A breakdown of this estimate by country is not available.
  2. Behavioural - it is likely that the introduction of JSA has had an effect on claimant behaviour, such as deterring fraudulent claims, but it is impossible to quantify this using available data.
  The estimates of ILO unemployment properly reflect people's behaviour in the labour market, as reported in LFS interviews, and are not dependent on the receipt of unemployment-related benefits. It is, however, possible that labour market behaviour could have been influenced to some extent by the introduction of Jobseekers' Allowance, although this cannot be quantified.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received on the availability of suitable software to allow chartered accountants to carry out partnership tax returns under the new assessment system; and what steps he will take to resolve those problems which have been identified; [5650]

  (2) when the Inland Revenue (a) planned to make and (b) made available to software houses final versions of the new tax return system; and if he will make a statement; [5651]

  (3) what advice he will issue to chartered accountants who cannot gain access to final versions of the necessary software to carry out computerised partnership returns under the new tax assessment system; and what plans he has to extend the filing deadlines for 1997 tax returns. [5652]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The availability and reliability of commercial computer software packages is a matter for software suppliers to address. For their part the Inland Revenue are continuing to work closely with software suppliers to give them the assistance they need to produce an approved software package.

  The near final draft of the new tax return for self-assessment was published in September 1996. The only changes made after September 1996 were minor corrections and the changes required following the last Budget.

  The Inland Revenue had kept software houses fully informed of developments throughout the three-year process of consultation on and testing of the new return form.

  Taxpayers have until 31 January 1998 to submit their completed 1996–97 tax returns. There are no plans to extend the filing deadline.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the interest payment liability for existing partnerships under income tax self-assessment where the profit for the transitional period is higher than the submitted assessment. [5649]
  122
  Dawn Primarolo
  From 1997–98 onwards the same payment rules will apply to all self-employed taxpayers, whether individuals or partners. But in 1996–97 special transitional rules apply. For certain partnerships—broadly, those with businesses which commenced prior to April 1994—the transitional arrangements mean that the existing rules are retained for one final year. As in previous years therefore the tax due for 1996–97 is payable in two instalments, on 1 January 1997 and 1 July 1997. Normally interest will only arise on any additional tax for the year, over and above the amount originally assessed, which remains unpaid after 1 July 1997.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the data gathered in 1977–79 for the tax options for a Scottish Parliament. [6142]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In taking forward work on the Government's devolution proposals, Treasury Ministers and officials have consulted a wide range of papers and people, including papers bearing on the devolution proposals of the last Labour Government.

  Budget
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish, at the same time as the Budget Statement, the Budget briefing pack prepared for departmental Ministers. [6263]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Budget documents will be provided to right hon. and hon. Members on Budget day as in the past. The Budget brief will be released on the Internet about a week later in the same way as last time.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on the tax yield of increasing the top rate of tax to 50p in the pound; and if he will make a statement. [6254]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated full year yield at 1997–98 income levels of increasing the top rate of income tax from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent is £5.3 billion. The yield includes the consequential effects on the yield of capital gains tax after allowing for likely changes in the volume of disposals. It does not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of the new rate.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Wet-bikes
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce regulation to govern the use of wet-bikes; and if he will make a statement. [4673]

  Angela Eagle
  Local authorities have powers to regulate seaside pleasure boats for the prevention of danger, obstruction or annoyance to persons bathing in the sea or using the seashore and for the prevention and
  123
  suppression of nuisances. We shall be considering whether existing powers are adequate as part of my Department's review of coastal byelaws.

  Strategic Authority for London
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the Government's plans to set up a strategic authority for London. [4676]

  Mr. Raynsford
  To date we have received 22 letters about our plans to set up a strategic authority for London. We have also had a number of meetings at which this issue has been raised.

  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress on the Government's plans to set up a strategic authority for London. [4682]

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress on the Government's plans to set up a strategic authority for London. [4691]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We intend to issue a consultation paper on the establishment of a strategic authority in London by the end of July. Subsequently we will introduce legislation to make provision for a referendum in London on this matter and, subject to parliamentary approval, it is our intention to hold the referendum in May 1998.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the regional economic development agencies to be set up. [4677]

  Mr. Cabon
  We propose to bring forward legislation in the Autumn with a view to the agencies beginning operation on 1 April 1999.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in enabling local authorities to improve and expand the provision of social housing. [4678]

  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in enabling local authorities to improve and expand the provision of social housing. [4680]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are currently consulting local authorities about our proposals for the capital receipts initiative which will provide additional resources to local housing authorities. Under this initiative local authorities will be able to renovate local authority stock and, in partnership with Registered Social Landlords, provide new social housing where appropriate.

  Scottish Assembly
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his letter of 3 June, if he will make a statement on the extent 124
  to which his Department would retain responsibility for the Health and Safety Commission in the circumstances of a Scottish Assembly. [4679]

  Angela Eagle
  We are currently considering many issues to do with devolution, including the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. The Government's proposals will be published in a White Paper later in the summer.

  Water Services
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in persuading water companies to accept responsibility for supply pipes. [4681]

  Mr. Meacher
  Water companies have responded positively to the 10 point plan announced at the Water Summit on 19 May. Most have agreed to offer a free leakage detection and repair service for household customers' supply pipes. We are pursuing this issue with a few companies who have yet to give a fully satisfactory response. We will make a further statement shortly.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next expects to meet representatives of the water companies to discuss water leakage. [4685]

  Mr. Prescott
  At the Water Summit on 19 May, I announced that the Director General of Water Services would set tough mandatory targets. I have no current plans to meet representatives of the water companies again to discuss the issue.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives he has undertaken to reduce homelessness. [4683]

  Ms Armstrong
  Homelessness is an affront to civilised society; this Government is adopting measures that deal with its causes, through the phased release of capital receipts to help fund new housing, and measures that deal with its effects, by providing a better deal for homeless households.

  Construction Contracts (Adjudication)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to bring forward proposals for adjudication, pursuant to the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. [4684]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I expect to lay the order required to implement Part II of this Act later this year.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce changes to council tax banding. [4686]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The question of whether any changes should be made to the structure of the council tax valuation hands is one that I shall wish to discuss with the Local Government Association and others for reaching a view. Any changes that might be proposed will be the subject of widespread consultation.

  Local Government Services
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he has taken to encourage public-private partnership in local government services. [4687]

  Ms Armstrong
  Good local government should be a partnership between local people, businesses and voluntary groups and our mandate is to give authorities the powers necessary to develop these partnerships. We have introduced a Bill to help authorities set up privately financed projects, and said that compulsory competitive tendering will be replaced by a duty on authorities to achieve best value. In these and other matters we are working closely with the Local Government Association and other parties directly interested in the provision of local services.

  National Memorial Arboretum, Alrewas
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions When he next plans to visit the National Memorial Arboretum near Alrewas. [4688]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have no plans to visit the National Memorial Arboretum, However, the Under Secretary of State (Angela Eagle) plans to visit the Arboretum in October when she launches the Tree Council's 100th Tree Warden Scheme at Lichfield.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to direct a local authority to rebill all households in the event that it is refused permission to spend above its cap; and who pays for this. [4689]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The powers to limit an authority's budget requirement are set out in sections 57 to 59 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Where these powers have been exercised, the authority is required to make substitute calculations by virtue of section 60, which applies to billing authorities, and section 61, which applies to precepting authorities. Under section 31 a billing authority which makes substitute calculations is required to set substitute amounts of council tax and there is an equivalent requirement for a precepting authority in section 42. Costs of rebilling fall to the billing authority except where they result from a substitute precept issued by a precepting authority. In such cases, section 31 allows the billing authority to recover its administrative expenses from the precepting authority.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding his Department's policy towards the capping of local authorities' spending. [5875]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have now met all three of the authorities designated for capping this year (Oxfordshire, Somerset and Warwickshire County Councils) and are carefully considering their cases before determining caps for each authority which are reasonable, achievable and appropriate. We hope to complete the 1997–98 capping round before the summer recess.
  126
  For the future, we have given a commitment to do away with crude and universal capping, although we will retain reserve powers to control excessive council tax increases. We are now considering ways to implement our commitment.

  Structure Plans
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that structure plan population and housing growth figures are commensurate with anticipated employment opportunities and job creation projections. [4690]

  Angela Eagle
  Existing national policy (PPG 12) provides advice to local authorities on the content of structure plans, including the need to ensure that interactions between land use policies for housing and economic development are fully considered. It is open to the Secretary of State to object to a plan if this advice is ignored. These issues are also considered during the preparation of Regional Planning Guidance, issued by the Secretary of State. The Government is committed to a more integrated approach to the planning process at the regional level and is considering the role that Regional Chambers and Regional Development Agencies might play in this process.

  Green Belt (West Midlands)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the protection of the Green Belt in the West Midlands with particular reference to the Meriden gap between Coventry and Birmingham. [4692]

  Angela Eagle
  Policy on Green Belts is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2. There is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development can only be justified if there are very special circumstances whereby the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

  Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands, published in September 1995, reaffirmed this national policy and made clear that the Meriden Gap should remain in the Green Belt.

  Within the Meriden Gap between Birmingham and Coventry, detailed Green Belt boundaries have been confirmed in the recently adopted Solihull Unitary Development Plan.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for reassessing the funding of the new unitary authorities with particular reference to North-east Lincolnshire. [4693]

  Ms Armstrong
  Discussions with local government on the distribution of Revenue Support Grant for 1998–99 are currently in progress. These discussions will cover most of the standard spending assessment elements received by unitary authorities.

  Devolved Decision Making
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for a rolling programme of devolved decision making within England. [4674]

  Mr. Caborn
  We want to encourage the development of representative regional bodies in England so that we can increase the Government's accountability. It is important, however, that uniformity is not imposed on the diverse English regions.

  Internet
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what use he plans to make of the Internet to make Government more open. [5104]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions already takes advantage of new technology, including the Internet, as part of its communications strategy. We promote the Internet as an important additional source of information across a wide range of the Department's responsibilities. Examples include the provision of national air quality data, up-dated hourly from the Department's monitoring stations, and full details of the Mobility Roadshow, being held at Crowthorne, with information on a range of production vehicles and equipment for disabled drivers.

  The Department currently has two Internet sites averaging 33,000 accesses a week. Collectively both sites carry substantial guidance on open access with information on the Department's business, with named officials, addresses, and telephone numbers and an alphabetically listed public enquiry facility with over 70 e-mail addresses. As a result of our recent merger, arrangements are now in hand to move towards a single Departmental Internet site. Until the site is set up the current addresses are as follows:

  DOE-http://www.open.gov.,uk/doe/doehome.htm

  DOT-http://www.open.gov.uk/dot/dothome.htm

  Passive Smoking
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the leisure industry concerning the dangers to their customers and employees from passive smoking. [5083]

  Angela Eagle
  Officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have discussed passive smoking with representatives of pub and restaurant trade associations. The associations are well aware of the dangers of passive smoking and are keen to work with us to develop effective smoking policies.

  The Government intend to hold a seminar of experts in the field of smoking reduction on 14 July 1997. The results of this seminar will inform policy, which will then be set out in a White Paper on our strategy to reduce smoking. As part of this, my Department will be looking for ways of speeding up progress in the introduction of more stringent smoking policies in public places.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to implement section 57 of the Environment Act 1995 (Provisions on Contaminated Land); and if he will make a statement. [5662]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 21 May to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett),Official Report, columns 84–85.

  Environmental Task Force
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria will determine the projects to be undertaken by the Environmental Task Force; to what extent the costs for non-Governmental organisations taking part in the scheme will be reimbursed; and what qualifications will be awarded to those taking part. [5664]

  Angela Eagle
  Further information on the Government's New Deal programme, including the Environmental Task Force, will be announced as part of the Budget.

  Nuclear Discharges
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy on proposals relating to nuclear discharges into the marine environment to be considered at the OSPAR convention meeting in September. [6283]

  Angela Eagle
  The UK delegation to the Oslo and Paris Commissions has made clear to our partners in those Commissions that the Government is reviewing the policy to be adopted on all the questions to be discussed at the forthcoming Ministerial meeting of the OSPAR Commission, among others those relating to radioactive substances, including waste. These reviews are not yet complete.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if housing benefit will continue to be paid via local authority housing revenue accounts. [5046]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are currently examining the financing of local authority housing as part of our comprehensive review of spending. Housing benefit granted by local authorities to their tenants as rent rebates is paid through local authority housing revenue accounts in accordance with the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Legislation would be required to change this.

  Lake District Planning Board
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the reappointment date for each member of the Lake District Planning Board. [5824]

  Angela Eagle
  Twelve members of the new Lake District National Park Authority were appointed by the then Secretary of State for the Environment with effect from 1 October 1996. They are listed below, together with the expiry date of their current appointments. Seven of
  129
  the 12 members are appointed to represent the national interest, the remainder are parish members. The Authority has a further 14 members appointed by the local authorities in the area.

  Secretary of State members of the Lake District National Park Authority

  Appointment expires

  National

  Mr. William Cowx

  31 March 1998

  Mr. John Trotter

  31 March 1998

  Mr. Peter Dean

  31 March 1999

  Mr. John Fryer-Spedding

  31 March 1999

  Mr. Keith Harryman

  31 March 1999

  Mr. John Park

  31 March 1999

  Mr. David Thornton

  31 March 1999

  Parish members

  Mr. Thomas Coulthard

  All 31 May 1999

  Mr. Benjamin Dobson

  Mr. John Hayton

  Dr. Helen Jones

  Mr. Jack Morris-Eyton

  Small Cetaceans Agreement
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the actions taken by the Government, pursuant to the Agreement for Small Cetaceans in the Baltic and North Seas. [6007]

  Angela Eagle
  The UK has taken forward numerous measures to implement the Resolution on the implementation of a Conservation and Management Plan, adopted by the Parties at Stockholm in September 1994. The Resolution established the following as priority actions: reduction of pollution; reduction of direct interaction with fisheries; reduction of indirect interactions with fisheries; reduction of disturbance; reduction of indirect disturbance; monitoring, status and population studies; education and promotion; and administration.

  The UK has produced a report on actions taken between April 1992 and March 1996. A copy of that report will be made available to the hon. Member.

  Vehicle Emissions Standards
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to improve vehicle emissions standards. [4705]

  Dr. Strang
  The Government is considering a range of measures for reducing vehicle emissions. These include measures aimed at reducing the level of emissions from individual vehicles, and reduced car usage.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce a decision about the Birmingham northern relief road. [4707]
  130
  Dr. Strang
  The Birmingham northern relief road is one of 12 schemes that are the subject of an accelerated review as part of our roads review. We propose to announce decisions on these schemes later.

  Railway Industry (Investment)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to encourage higher investment by the privatised rail industry. [4708]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government is keen to encourage higher levels of investment by the rail industry. First and foremost, we will use all the levers at our disposal to make sure that Railtrack and the train operating companies deliver on their existing investment obligations.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for the future of trust ports. [4799]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Trust ports vary greatly in their commercial significance, type of use, and the powers and duties they have under local legislation. We will be reviewing the options available to trust ports, including voluntary privatisation under the Ports Act 1991.

  M62 Relief Road
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in respect of the M62 relief road scheme. [4710]

  Dr. Strang
  The M62 relief road was withdrawn from the roads programme in November 1995.

  Public Transport (Bicycles)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received recently regarding the transit of bicycles on the public transport system; and if he will make a statement. [4711]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have received 29 representations about the transit of bicycles on trains.

  The Government supports the objectives of the national cycling strategy and the aim of a fourfold increase in cycling by 2012, as pail of an integrated transport policy. The Government will be encouraging improvements in conditions for cycling, and we intend to play a lull part in the National Cycling Forum, which has been set up to co-ordinate delivery of the strategy.

  I recently presented a cycle mark to Anglia Railways under the rail operations' code of practice for cyclists for its bikes on trains initiatives.

  London Underground
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the future ownership of London Underground. [4712]
  131
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for the funding of London Underground. [4718]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are looking very urgently at options for public/private partnership to increase investment in the core Underground network. This work is intended to fulfil our Manifesto commitment to develop "a new public/private partnership to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers". We have also made it clear that wholesale privatisation of London Underground is not the answer.

  Airports (Investment)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the level of investment in the airports system. [4713]

  Dr. Strang
  In 1995–96, the most recent year for which information is available, £591 million was invested in UK airports. (Sources: The UK Airports Industry Airports Statistics 1995–96, published by the Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries, and the Civil Aviation Authority).

  A1 (Morpeth)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about progress towards dualling the A1 north of Morpeth. [4716]

  Dr. Strang
  The Highways Agency is investigating the further dualling of the A1 between Morpeth and the Scottish Border.

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for the reduction of road traffic as part of his Department's promotion of sustainable development. [4717]

  Dr. Strang
  We will be addressing the issue of road traffic growth as we develop our integrated transport policy.

  Traffic Flow (London)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on plans to improve traffic flow in London. [4706]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government announced last month that it was launching a fundamental review of transport policy to provide an integrated transport system which meets the needs of all regions of the county, including London. Traffic levels will form a key aspect of that review.

  Heathrow and Gatwick Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many days in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997 a procedure permitting a
  132
  reduced final approach separation distance between aircraft has been put into operation at (i) Heathrow and (ii) Gatwick airports. [5603]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Strict criteria, particularly in respect of visibility and weather conditions, govern the introduction of reduced final approach separation. Since the trials began in 1994, procedure has been applied for approximately 1 per cent. of flights into Heathrow overall. Specific information on the number of days involved in 1996 and 1997 is not available. A similar trial is expected to start at Gatwick airport soon.

  Cycling
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will represent to the Rail Regulator the importance of cycling in the Government's transport policy; and if he will make a Statement. [5807]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 12 June 1997,Official Report, volume 296, column 523.

  Roads Programme Review
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental and economic criteria the Government will use to review road schemes in its forthcoming Roads Programme Review; if the same criteria will apply for each phase of the review; and if he will make a statement. [5960]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Roth the accelerated review and the main review will use the same criteria of accessibility, safety, environmental impact and economy. Our objective is to find the best possible solutions to the transport problems we face within the limits of the available resources and to ensure that short term gains in one area are not negated by wider or longer term damage. Achieving the right balance between our four criteria will therefore be a central issue in the review.

  Channel Tunnel (Safety)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve security on trains travelling through the Channel Tunnel. [6153]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The security requirements placed on the operators of Channel Tunnel rail services are closely tailored to the risk, which takes account of the threat to the tunnel as assessed by Government agencies. The measures, which cover both the trains and the passengers, freight and vehicles carried, are constantly monitored and adjusted according to the level of assessed risk, and any necessary improvements made in the light of experience.

  Public Servants (Car Use)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what policies the Government will adopt to discourage the use of cars by public servants. [4714]
  133
  Dr. Strang
  A cross-Government group is reviewing existing travel policies and identifying what measures can be taken to reduce the environmental impact of travel. Departments are being encouraged to draw up green transport plans to address issues such as staff commuting and official business travel. Guidance on green transport plans is being developed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to assist other Departments. The Government has also been encouraging public and private sector organisations to look at ways of minimising staff commuting by car and cutting down on environmental impacts of car fleets. The Government's general transport policies to encourage use of public transport and reduce car dependency, will also affect public servants' travel decisions.

  Rail Services (South West)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review rail services in the south west. [4715]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our objective for the whole of the passenger network is to see more people travelling by rail. We want higher levels of investment, proper enforcement of train operators' service commitments and all the benefits of having a national railway network. We welcome work that is planned or in progress to improve rail services in the south west and elsewhere on the network.

  Network Card
  Mr. Barstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the powers of the Rail Regulator to enable him to prevent train operating companies making significant changes to the conditions applying to network-purchased train tickets. [5463]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Neither the Government nor the Rail Regulator has powers to prevent train operating companies making changes to the conditions applying to the Network Card. Train operating companies' participation in the Network Card scheme is voluntary and there is no statutory obligation on them to offer the Network Card.

  The Government is currently considering the options for establishing more effective and accountable regulation by the Rail Regulator.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet the Rail Operators Association to discuss their proposals to(a) limit the use of the network and (b) increase the cost of travel for those using the network card. [6299]

  Ms Jackson
  The Government has no powers to prevent train operators changing either the price of the Network Card or the conditions on which it is offered. The Government is keen to see off-peak rail travel increase. We have already held a number of discussions with train operators, and we will continue to encourage them to develop new plans to expand the off-peak market in the South East and elsewhere.

  Bus Route Tenders (London)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) of 19 June,Official Report, column 278, if he will make it his policy to withhold on grounds of confidentiality only those parts of any tender document that necessarily should be confidential and make the other parts of the document publicly available with those confidential parts blanked Out. [6123]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter for London Transport Buses.

  Lightning Jets
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of granting licences to fly ex-RAF Lightning jets in private ownership in the United Kingdom; and what guidance he issues to licensing authorities in other countries. [5505]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The issue of Permits to Fly to ex military aircraft is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority, which is sponsored by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The CAA's policy on this subject is set out in the British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR) Chapter A8–20—this requirement covers the design evaluation and assessment of the aircraft type, as well as the maintenance activity required to maintain its airworthiness. In addition, Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 632 specifies the requirements to be satisfied for the operation of ex military aircraft by civil organisations, owners and operators. BCAR A8–20 and CAP 632 are both available to the public.

  The CAA does not give general guidance to overseas authorities, but would share its experience on specific aircraft types if asked.

  M25
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the length of the stretches of road to be included in the proposed widening of the M25 in Surrey including those areas involving the removal of hard shoulders; and if he will make a statement. [6335]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The widening scheme for M25 junctions 12 to 15 is 10.9 km long of which 1.595 km of the Northbound carriageway and 955 m of the Southbound carriageway has discontinued hard shoulder.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the accelerated highways review will include an assessment of the safety implications of containing the proposed widening of the M25 in Surrey within the existing motorway curtilage; and if he will make a statement. [6340]

  Ms Jackson
  The Accelerated Review will assess schemes in terms of accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impact. The safety implications of continuing widening within the existing motorway boundary will be considered.
  135
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the projected carbon emissions within the vicinity are consequent on the proposed widening of the M25 between junctions 12 and 15 will be compatible with the commitments made on behalf of the United Kingdom under the Convention on Climate Change; and if he will make a statement. [6337]

  Ms Jackson
  The UK is on course to meet its climate change convention commitment to return national emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Within this trend of downward total national emissions some individual emissions may rise. As shown in the Environmental Statement about the scheme this is forecast for the proposed widening of the M25 between junctions 12 and 15. Such increases are not incompatible with the UK commitment.

  A23
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the construction of the A23 Coulsdon Inner Relief Road. [6334]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The A23 Coulsdon Inner Relief Road proposals will be considered within the terms of the comprehensive Review of Trunk Roads announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. The full Review will include consultation with interested parties. The results of the Review are expected next Spring.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment has been made of the feasibility of a banded form of vehicle excise duty related to engine size and fuel efficiency and the environmental benefits that would accrue. [5381]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to comment on tax matters in advance of the Budget.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements there are to ensure a high quality of telephone access to the Child Support Agency; and if she will review the quality of telephone access. [2182]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide an efficient and effective service to all its clients throughout the child support assessment process.

  The Secretary of State has asked the Child Support Agency to improve the telephone service it offers to its customers. To do this the Agency plans to employ staff to work a wider more flexible range of working patterns over six days a week. This will provide more opportunities for customers to contact the Agency and
  136
  vice versa, and will enable the Agency to deliver a better standard of customer service through greater use of the telephone and faster throughput of cases.

  Pensioners' Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Christmas bonus for pensioners was introduced; what was its value; and what plans he has to increase it this year. [4033]

  Mr. Denham
  All pensioners should share fairly in rising national prosperity and we are committed to examining ways to deliver more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. We will shortly be announcing details of a review of the central areas of insecurity for older people.

  The Christmas bonus was first paid in December 1972 at the rate of £10. We have no plans to increase this payment in 1997.

  Benefits (Payment)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will increase the discretion of local managers of benefits offices to allow those who may be currently required to appear in person to collect benefit, to be paid their benefit by post. [4567]

  Mr. Field
  In order to safeguard public funds, each individual claimant's case is considered on its own merit. There are no plans to amend this regulation. As the administration of Social Security benefits is a matter for the Benefits Agency, I have asked its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison, to write to the hon. Member directly and for his reply to be published with the answer.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tom Dalyell, dated 30 June 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if she will increase the discretion of local managers of benefit offices to allow those who may be currently required to appear in person to collect benefit, to be paid their benefit by post.
  The manner in which benefit is paid is determined by a Benefits Agency officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. These officials have a duty to safeguard public funds and to ensure that the customer receives the benefit to which they are entitled. There are circumstances where officials may consider it necessary for a customer to collect their benefit in person. These may be where the customer has an unsafe postal address or is homeless.
  A customer's individual circumstances are always considered when the payment method is determined. There are no plans to change the level of discretion an officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State has in determining whether a customer is required to collect their benefit in person.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Housing Benefit (Rent Levels)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the future relationship between housing benefit subsidy and rent levels in the public sector. [5047]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Housing policy and housing benefit policy should not be considered in isolation from each other, and we need to consider the relationship between personal subsidy and "bricks and mortar" subsidy. This Department will be working with the
  137
  Department of the Environment, Transport and the regions with the aim of developing a housing policy which frees people from the benefit trap and which encourages personal responsibility.

  We are examining the financing of local authority housing as part of our Comprehensive Spending Review. This will review all aspects of public expenditure and will see that taxpayers' money is being spent effectively in order to fulfil the Government's manifesto commitments.

  Pensioners (VAT on Fuel)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the effect on(a) a single retirement pensioner and (b) retirement pensioner couple of reducing VAT on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent., taking into account the effect of the subsequent annual uprating of pensions and benefits. [6173]

  Mr. Denham
  Pensioners' fuel bills vary considerably. We expect any reduction in VAT to be reflected in their fuel bills.

SCOTLAND

  Crofting
  Mrs. Ray Mitchie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have been held with representatives of the Scottish Crofter's Union regarding(a) changes to land tenure and (b) specific grants fur crofters and crofting communities. [3822]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]: My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries met representatives of the Scottish Crofters' Union (SCU) on 9 June. There was no discussion of changes to land tenure as such but union representatives outlined their ideas for the establishment of a Pan-Highland Trust. In addition, the SCU mentioned the importance to crofters of the crofters building grants and loans scheme.

  Bullying
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to schools and local education authorities concerning dealing with bullying; and what steps he has taken to encourage schools and LEAs to learn from best practice elsewhere in Scotland in this respect. [5397]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government take the problem of bullying very seriously. In recent years, my Department has issued a range of guidance on the subject, as follows.

  In 1992, the Department issued to all schools a support pack called "Action against Bullying". The pack contained extensive examples of good practice and stressed that the single most important thing a school can do to prevent bullying is have a clear policy to which staff, pupils and parents are committed.

  In 1993, the Department funded the issue to every school of a follow-up resource pack aimed at non-teaching staff and families. The pack is called "Supporting Schools against Bullying in Scotland".
  138
  In August 1994, the Department issued to all schools a leaflet aimed directly at children entitled "Let's Stop Bullying—Advice for Young People". In August the following year, the Department issued a further leaflet providing advice for parents and families entitled "Let's Stop Bullying—Advice for Parents and Families".

  We are urgently reviewing what further steps might be taken. I have asked for the report "Which Way Now? A Progress Report on Bullying in Scottish Schools" by Andrew Mellor to be followed up, in order to establish if there are further measures based on the report which could be usefully implemented. I am also taking steps to satisfy myself that every school has an effective anti-bullying policy in place.

  Health Boards
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reform the structure of health boards in Scotland with particular reference to the percentage of the board made up of(a) councillors, (b) NHS representatives and (c) directly elected representatives; and if he will make a statement. [5862]

  Mr. Galbraith
  In the last week eight new chairmen for health boards have been announced, which signals a new direction for the Scottish Health Service. It is out intention to ensure that health boards are representative of the populations they serve: I have just announced a local authority member for Lothian, Tayside and Grampian health boards. It is my intention to ensure that all health boards have on them a local authority member. I have also indicated that I would welcome nominations of candidates for health boards from the STUC. In all cases I will appoint the best available candidates in order to pursue the Government agenda for the NHS.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when, and in what form, the water authorities in Scotland will be returned to local democratic control. [5866]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 5 June 1997 to my hon. Friend the member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall),Official Report, column 233–34 and to the reply given on 26 June 1997 to my right hon. Friend for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaher (Mr. Stewart), Official Report, column 601–02.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Scottish health projects which were pursuing experimental private finance initiative funding as at 22 June; and if he will indicate the sum spent to date in respect of preparatory work for each project. [5992]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 30 June 1997]: Proposals for capital projects which were exploring the PFI route as at 22 June this year and on which information is held by the Department are as listed. It should be noted that projects are considered for PFI only alter outline business case approval. In addition there are other smaller projects developed on the same principles which fall within trust and health board delegated limits and for which information is not held centrally.
  139

  Health board/NHS trust

  Project description

  Capital value (£ million)

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  Relocation of major acute teaching hospital

  175

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  Hospital

  100

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  New major acute hospital

  63

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  Provision of geriatric beds at Mearnskirk

  2

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Community Hospital (Cumnock, East Ayrshire)

  9

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services Trust

  Replacement of facilities for delivery of in patient mental health services (Stobhill)

  8

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  Provision of geriatric medicine

  9

  Western Isles Health Board

  Community Hospital

  8

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  Provision of maternity and day care services

  4

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  Provision of maternity services

  10

  Orkney Health Board

  Community Hospital

  12

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  Provision of psychiatric unit (Inverness)

  18

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  Provision of psychiatric unit (Dundee)

  9

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Geriatric assessment facility

  9

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  New major acute teaching hospital

  100

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  Package of schemes

  40

  On Monday 16 June I announced that due to the urgent nature of proposals for maternity and theatre facilities at Glasgow Royal the Government would provide £36 million of public funding. Other aspects of the package of schemes will continue to explore PFI. I also decided that PFI was inappropriate for proposals for the redevelopment of the Western general hospital in Edinburgh and on Monday 23 June announced that £40 million would be provided for a new ward and theatre block.

  Information on sums spent on preparatory work is not centrally available. However we estimate that costs should be not more than 1.5 per cent. of the capital value of a project. In view of the innovative nature of PFI boards and trusts have been provided with sonic funding to help cover these costs. As at 30 April 1997 grants to projects listed above amounted to approximately £4.7 million. We expect costs to decrease significantly as the PFI process becomes more streamlined. It should also be noted that much of the preparatory work for a project is necessary regardless of whether it will be funded publicly or under the PFI.

  Badgers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) arrests, (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions have been recorded under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 in Scotland in each year since 1992 broken down by local authority; and if he will make a statement. [5708]

  Mr. McLeish
  Information on the number of people arrested is not collected centrally.
  140
  The information requested on prosecutions and convictions is not separately identifiable within the Scottish Office Home Department's classification of crimes and offences.

  Museums
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the museums in Scotland registered under the Museums and Galleries Commission's 9 registration scheme. [6312]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There are some 300 Scottish museums and galleries registered under the scheme. A list of registered museums in Scotland drawn up by the Museums and Galleries Commission is available in the Library.

HEALTH

  Royal Bolton Hospital
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients admitted to Royal Bolton hospital(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 had been forced to remain in hospital for longer than their treatment required because suitable residential or day care was not available for up to (i) one week, (ii) two weeks, (iii) one month, (iv) two months and (v) three months or longer; and what estimate he has made of the additional costs to the NHS of these extended periods of care. [4251]

  Mr. Boateng
  For information for 1 June 1997, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 20 June 1997 at columns 317–18. Bolton Hospital national health service trust is unable to aggregate these figures for the reasons previously described. The trust has collected precise information on this subject only for the last 18 months. My hon. Friend may wish to approach Mrs. B. Peacock, chairman of the trust, for more details.

  Surgical Work
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring takes place of the quality of surgery carried out in general practitioners' surgeries; how this compares with the monitoring of similar surgical work in hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [5320]

  Mr. Milburn
  In order to receive a fee from the health authority for undertaking minor surgical procedures, a general practitioner must gain admission to the health authority's minor surgery list. The National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 require the health authority to satisfy itself that the general practitioner has the medical experience, training and facilities necessary to carry out minor surgical procedures.

  General practitioners themselves are guided by professional advice on minor surgery. We are exploring with the profession options for standardising entry criteria and introducing regular review of general practitioners on such lists.

  Clinical audit can have a valuable role in maintaining and enhancing the quality of clinical care. The Government and the NHS support clinical audit in all

  141
  areas of care, and nowadays participation in audit is becoming an accepted and expected part of high standards of professional practice.

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were awaiting non-emergency treatment for(a) up to six months, (b) up to 12 months, (c) up to 18 months, (d) up to 24 months and (e) for over 24 months in the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East at the latest date for which figures are available. [5562]

  Mr. Milburn
  The latest date for which the information requested is available is 31 March 1997. Provisional figures show that on that date 9,931 patients were waiting for admission to South Tees Acute hospitals NHS trust, the major trust in my hon. Friend's constituency, on either an inpatient or day-case basis. Of these, 7,430 had been waiting up to six months and all had been waiting less than 12 months.

  Prescriptions
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to health authorities concerning the(a) payment and (b) monitoring of payment for prescriptions, issued by general practitioners for optician services. [5659]

  Mr. Milburn
  Only optometrists, and ophthalmic medical practitioners are empowered to issue prescriptions for glasses under the General Ophthalmic Services. Guidance on monitoring and checking arrangements is contained in Health Circular HC(91)17, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Health Service Reviews
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a full list of reviews at present being carried out in the national health service, the timetable for each review and if the results will be published. [5691]

  Mr. Milburn
  In addition to reviews of local services being carried out by health authorities, the Government have announced the following reviews which have an impact on the national health service.

  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced a Government-wide comprehensive spending review on 11 June which will look at all areas of Government spending. The timetable for the review is 12 months and the results will inform a new set of public expenditure plans. In the Department of Health the review will be carried out in the context of the Government's election manifesto commitment which states:
  "it you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your GP happens to be or on where you live".

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 20 June the details of the Government's review of health services in London. The review will be conducted by an independent advisory panel chaired by Sir Leslie Turnberg, President of the Royal College of
  142
  Physicians. The panel has been asked to complete the main elements of its work by the end of October 1997. It is envisaged that the panel's findings will be published.

  We have announced an ongoing review looking at the process and product of the private finance initiative in the NHS. It will be complete by the end of the year and the results will be published.

  In addition, we have also established a national health service efficiency task force to explore more effective and efficient ways of delivering high quality patient care. The group has not been asked to prepare a report.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the 1996–97 General Dental Service access funding grants were allocated to dental practices in the Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon health authority area; if this funding has been distributed; and to what extent criteria set out in the bid were fulfilled. [5681]

  Mr. Milburn
  The funding was used to meet the aims identified in the health authority's bid and was allocated to practices in the 1996–97 financial year.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the £41,000 recently awarded to Gloucestershire health authority to improve patients' access to NHS dentistry has yet been allocated. [5674]

  Mr. Milburn
  Yes.

  Cancer Treatment (CPT-II)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effectiveness of the drug CPT-II in combating bowel cancer; [5612]

  (2) what is the cost of a course of treatment for CPT-II; [5614]

  (3) which health authorities currently allow the supply of CPT-II to cancer patients. [5613]

  Ms Jowell
  CPT-II is the manufacturer's code name for a chemotherapy drug, Irinotecan hydrochloride which this year acquired a product licence from the Medicines Control Agency. While the Department of Health does not undertake research into new drugs prior to licensing, the Medicines Control Agency assesses the research evidence relating to their quality, safety and efficacy before licensing. The dose of CPT-II is adjusted for the size of patient; the cost of one dose is £830 on average and some patients may have up to six doses, at intervals of three weeks.

  The drug came on the market only three months ago. Further research is underway to assess its role in comparison with current standard treatment and many doctors will await the outcome of this research before deciding whether to use this drug. For these reasons, it is too early to derive meaningful information on where the drug is being provided. The decisions on whether to use any drug takes into consideration the medical details of the individual patient and evidence as to whether the patient is likely to benefit.

  Health Service Fraud
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the Healthcare Financial Management Association report concerning alleged fraud in the health service; and if he will make a statement; [5657]

  (2) what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Healthcare Financial Management Association report on alleged fraud in the health service. [5658]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are determined to stamp out fraud which diverts resources away from patient care in the national health service. The report of the Efficiency Scrutiny on Prescription Fraud in England and Wales was published on 19 June. In response to that report, we have already announced the Government's intention to take immediate steps to tackle prescription fraud.

  We shall also look carefully at the report of the Healthcare Financial Management Association and consider its recommendations, some of which complement those of the Efficiency Scrutiny. We shall consider the proposals to deal with dental and optical fraud on a similar timescale.

  Hepatitis C
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that counselling is available for those who contracted hepatitis C, other than by means of blood transfusions. [5667]

  Ms Jowell
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health said in his reply of 19 June 1997, column 291, patients who may be infected with hepatitis C should be given sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision about the implications for them of a positive test before being tested. Generally we would expect that the health care professionals dealing with the patient should be able to provide the advice and support that the patient needs. A few may require more specialist counselling and support. Patients who have a positive test should, if they wish, be referred to a specialist for further advice on the management of their disease, including more specialised counselling. It is for those commissioning services to ensure that suitably trained staff are available to advise such patients irrespective of how they were infected.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department gives on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for health authorities or trusts to engage outside advisers or consultants in the preparation of PFI proposals; and if he will make a statement. [5815]

  Mr. Milburn
  Guidance on the appointment of external consultants and advisers is given in the "National Health Service Capital Investment Manual" (HSG(94)31 published in 1994) in the sections "Business Case Guide" and "Management of Construction Projects". The "Guide to Procedures for the Commissioning of Building and Engineering Consultants" issued as part of "Concode" (published 1983) also gives advice. Advice is also 144
  available in "5 Steps to the Appointment of Advisers to PFI Projects" (published May 1996) which was issued by the private finance panel.

  We will be examining the use of external advisors in our review of PFI.

  Elmstead House, Hendon
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report into the deaths at Elmstead House, Hendon, will be published. [5663]

  Mr. Milburn
  We understand that Barnet health authority currently expects the report of the review panel to be published in late July or early August this year.

  Health Service Professionals
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of self employed status for national health service (i) general practitioners, (ii) pharmacists, (iii) dentists and (iv) opticians. [5660]

  Mr. Milburn
  Self-employment has both advantages and disadvantages for both the national health service and the contractors concerned. who will take these into account when making decisions on how best to pursue their professions.

  The national health service already directly employs doctors, dentists, pharmacists and optometrists in the hospital and community health sectors.

  The national health service Acts currently require health authorities to arrange for the provision of primary care, generally through independent contractors. Pilots that may be introduced under the NHS (Primary Care) Act 1997 could extend to doctors and dentists options for salaried service in this sector.

  BSE
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received further advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on the scientific evidence on the possibility of a link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [6573]

  Mr. Dobson
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) considered this issue at its meeting on 23 May 1997 and has since produced a statement entitled, "research Into The Link Between BSE and nvCJD" (SEAC, June 1997). The statement summarises the key research results on the question of whether there is a causal link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD) which have emerged since March 1996 when SEAC first concluded that the most likely explanation for the eases of the new variant CJD was exposure to BSE before the introduction of the Spongiform Bovine Offals ban in 1989. The statement concludes that the evidence that has accumulated since the March 1996 announcement is consistent with the hypothesis that nvCJD is caused by exposure to the BSE agent, and that no evidence refuting the hypothesis that nvCJD is caused by exposure to the BSE agent, and that
  145
  no evidence refuting the hypothesis has yet come to light. However, SEAC regard the evidence to date as insufficient to constitute formal scientific proof of a causative link, and that further data are required before a firm conclusion can be reached. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library.

  Blood Centre, Liverpool
  Ms Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received(a) during the consultation process and (b) subsequently from medical consultees on the clinical implications of proposals to remove blood processing and testing from the Liverpool blood centre. [5653]

  Mr. Boateng
  The consultation process relating to the plans for the reorganisation of the National Blood Service took place in 1994–95. Separate records were not kept on the make-up of those commenting. Since 1 May 1997, one clinician has written with views on the proposed changes at the Liverpool blood centre.

  Hospitals (London Review)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the geographical area for hospitals within the London review; and on what basis that area was determined. [5715]

  Mr. Milburn
  The review covers services provided within the area of Greater London.

  Basildon and Thurrock Hospital Trust
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the towns of residence of each of the non-executive directors of the Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust; [5710]

  (2) what are the termination dates of the contracts for the existing non-executive directors of the Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust; and when he expects advertisements will be published inviting applications to fill the next vacancies that occur. [5711]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Post town

  Appointment dates From

  To

  Chairman

  Mr. Ian

  Macpherson

  Ingatestone

  1 Doccmber 1993

  30 November 1997

  Non-executive directors

  Mr. Derek

  Harman

  Benfleet

  1 December 1995

  30 November 1997

  Mrs. Joan

  Sladden

  Brentwood

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Peter Wallis

  Grays

  1 December 1994

  30 November 1998

  Mr. Melvyn

  Lambert

  Hornchurch

  1 December 1996

  30 November 1998

  Ms Fiona Last

  Brentwood

  1 December 1996

  30 November 1998

  An advertisement for the chairmanship appointment appeared in the Sunday Times on 29 June 1997. Two more advertisements will be placed in The Guardian on 2 July 1997, and The Times on 3 July 1997. The two non-executive director posts will be advertised in the local press shortly.
  146
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which(a) royal colleges and (b) other bodies have indicated that they may withdraw accreditation for teaching of staff employed by the Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust if services are not transferred to Basildon hospital from (i) Orsett hospital and (ii) other locations. [5713]

  Mr. Milburn
  We understand from Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust that the accreditation of training currently undertaken at Basildon hospital is not dependent on services being transferred there from Orsett or other locations.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants with(a) full time contracts and (b) part-time contracts with the Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust are permitted under those contracts to work privately at (i) the Nuffield hospital, Brentwood and (ii) other hospitals indicating the total hours they are contracted to work for (1) the trust in each case and (2) in private hospitals. [5714]

  Mr. Milburn
  We understand from Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust that it currently employs 69 consultant medical staff. Of these 31 are on whole-time contracts and do 11 sessions a week, 30 are on maximum pan-time contracts and do 10 sessions a week, and eight are on part time contracts and do from two to eight sessions a week for the trust. The consultants are employed on nationally agreed terms and conditions which specify their entitlement to undertake private practice. The work plans of every consultant are reviewed annually to ensure that contractual requirements are met and that clinical sessions are allocated to meet local healthcare needs.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the document by which the Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust consulted the Burma Star Association over its intention to seek planning permission for residential development at Orsett of land containing the Burma Star Association's garden of remembrance. [5716]

  Mr. Milburn
  We understand from Basildon and Thurrock General llospitals NHS trust that the planning documents prepared so far deal with the principles of land use. Matters relating to the layout of the land are reserved, and Parties having an interest in the site will be consulted as appropriate.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the terminal dates of the fixed term contracts for each of the executive directors of the Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust. [5709]

  Mr. Milburn
  We understand from Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS trust that each of the executive directors is on an 18-month rolling contract subject to regular formal review by the remuneration committee.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the expert group on cot deaths chaired by lady Limerick to publish its final report; if he will ask
  147
  the group to research the cause of levels of antimony and phosphorus compounds in infants; and if he will make a statement. [5844]

  Mr. Boateng
  The expert group on cot death theories has the following terms of reference:"To review the findings of the report on "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome" (the "Turner report", 1991) and any subsequent data on hypotheses linking antimony with unexplained deaths in infants; and to advise the CMO on what further studies should be undertaken to investigate postulated causal relationships between chemicals and cot deaths."

  The group is expected to publish its final report in December 1997. It has given detailed consideration to all aspects of the theory and have recommended a considerable amount of research work, which has been funded by the Department. Any need for further action will be considered following publication of the report.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers he has to review and terminate the appointment of members of NHS trusts, ambulance trusts and health authorities before the end of their normal appointment period; and in what circumstances he may take such action. [5825]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has powers to terminate the appointment of chairmen or non-executive directors of national health service bodies. The circumstances in which these powers may be used are defined in regulations. Those relating to trusts, including ambulance trusts, are contained within the National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990 (Statutory Instrument 1990/2024), as amended by the National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996/1755). In relation to chairmen and non-executive members of health authorities,

  They are contained within the Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure Regulations) 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996/707). Copies of these regulations are available in the Library.

  Euthanasia
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on his policy on(a) the legislation of euthanasia and (b) the granting of legally binding status to advance directives; [6076]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce legislation on advance directives, euthanasia, or the treatment of mentally incapacitated adults; and if he will make a statement. [6075]

  Ms Jowell
  We have no plans to introduce legislation to legalise euthanasia. Advance directives, provided they contain lawful instructions, if validly made and applicable in the circumstances presenting, are already legally binding under the common law. My right hon. and noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor is considering what action to take on the Law Commission's proposals concerning mentally incapacitated adults.

  Social and Health Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will conduct a review of the arrangements for joint working between primary health care providers and social services departments in the commission of social and health care. [5881]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Health Service Executive and social services inspectorate, in consultation with relevant bodies, are developing and will shortly be issuing a resource pack to assist local authorities and primary care to develop more effective collaborative arrangements. This will be followed by a series of regional dissemination events.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the likely reduction in smoking resulting from a total ban on(a) tobacco advertising and (b) tobacco sponsorship; what research his Department has evaluated on this matter; and if he will place this research in the Library. [6304]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the relative efficiency of (a) banning tobacco (i) advertising and (ii)sponsorship and (b) other methods in reducing levels of smoking. [6303]

  Ms Jowell
  There is a significant body of research connecting tobacco advertising with children's smoking, both in predisposing children to start smoking and reinforcing the habit in those who have already started. Research, most recently that commissioned by the Health Education Authority to be published this week, indicates that the percentage of 11 to 15-year-olds who report having seen adverts for cigarettes in the last six months is as high as 96 per cent. Studies have also repeatedly shown that children who smoke choose brands which are most heavily advertised, and there is also evidence that adult consumption is affected by advertising. The 1992 Smee report on the effect of tobacco advertising on consumption found that in individual countries the balance of evidence shows that advertising does have a positive effect on consumption, copies of this report are available in the Library.

  Controlling tobacco consumption requires a much wider range of measures if we are to have a real impact and see a significant and lasting reduction. The Government summit on smoking on 14 July will inform the development of a range of policy measures to tackle smoking; the resulting policies will be set out in a White Paper to be published later in the year. An advertising ban is a necessary part of that package of complementary measures.

WALES

  Hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action to be pursued with the Labour Group of Blaenau Gwent Council was discussed between his special adviser and the leader of the council to persuade the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) not to oppose Welsh devolution. [6256]
  149
  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales from where his special adviser phoned(a) the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent about his opposition to devolution and (b) the leader of Blaenau Gwent Council about the same subject; what discussion he had with his special adviser on the subject of the call prior to it being made; and which (i) Minister and (ii) officials were present when they were made. [6257]

  Mr. Davies
  My special adviser phoned the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent at my request, and without further discussion with me he then phoned the Leader of Blaenau Gwent Council. Both calls were made from the Welsh Office and neither Ministers nor officials were present.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussion(a) he and (b) his special adviser has had with the leader of Blaenau Gwent Council about the allegations made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent in respect of his special adviser's earlier phone call. [6258]

  Mr. Davies
  After recent reports in the media the leader of Blaenau Gwent Council contacted me to assure me that he did not regard the conversation he had with my special adviser as threatening or intimidating in any way. He undertook to write to me to that effect. My special adviser has since spoken to him to obtain a copy of this letter, but there was no discussion of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his engagements, with times, on the days of the phone calls which are the subject of allegations by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. [6259]

  Mr. Davies
  The precise dates of the telephone calls subject to various allegations are not known, so I cannot list my engagements.

  Number of defendants prosecuted in magistrates' courts and concvicted at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 by type of offence and police force area 1992–95

  Sections 1 to 5 and 101

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Police force area

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Cheshire

  2

  2

  —

  —

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  4

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  1

  —

  —

  —

  5

  3

  1

  —

  Derbyshire

  3

  3

  4

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  8

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  3

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  6

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Humberside

  4

  4

  3

  3

  —

  —

  3

  2

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Building Waste (Dumping)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many incidents of the illegal dumping of waste material by building companies have been investigated by the Environment Agency in Wales in the past year; and how many have led to prosecutions. [5882]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  That is a matter for the Environment Agency. I have asked the Regional General Manager to write to the hon. Member, and will place a copy of his reply in the Library of the House.

  Wildlife Protection
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) arrests, (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions have been recorded under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in Wales since its introduction, broken down by local authority; and if he will make a statement. [5704]

  Mr. Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the number of people arrested for specific offences is not collected centrally.

  Information on court proceedings under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which came into force on 29 April 1996, will first become available this autumn. That information will be by police force area and not by local authority area.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) arrests, (b) prosecutions and (C) convictions have been recorded under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 in Wales in each year since 1992, broken down by local authority; and if he will make a statement. [5707]

  Mr. Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the number of people arrested for specific offences is not collected centrally.

  Available court proceedings data, by police force area, are given in the table below. 1996 information will be available in the autumn.
  151

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 by type of offence and police force area 1992–95

  Sections 1 to 5 and 101

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Police force area

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  7

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Northumbria

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  South Yorkshire

  2

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  8

  6

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  1

  —

  6

  1

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  9

  7

  2

  —

  4

  4

  2

  2

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  2

  1

  7

  3

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England

  42

  23

  46

  20

  32

  22

  33

  21

  Dyfed Powys

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  3

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  3

  3

  2

  2

  7

  5

  3

  3

  South Wales

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  8

  5

  2

  2

  7

  5

  8

  6

  England and Wales

  50

  28

  48

  22

  39

  27

  41

  27

  1 Offences of cruelty to badgers and special protection for badgers and their setts.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 by type of offence and police force area 1992–95

  Section 131

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Police force area

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Sussex

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  6

  6

  —

  —

  1

  1

  West Yorkshire

  4

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England

  11

  8

  12

  9

  10

  8

  6

  5

  152 153

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 by type of offence and police force area 1992–95

  Section 131

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Police force area

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Pros

  Con

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Gwent

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  England and Wales

  12

  9

  12

  9

  11

  8

  7

  6

  1 Offence of failing to give up dog for destruction or having custody of a dog while disqualified (Powers of court where dog used or present at commission of offence under Sections 1, 2 or 3 of the Act).

  Pros = Prosecutions, Con = Convictions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle Tags
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek agreement from the European Commission for double tagging of cattle to include at least one metal tag. [5453]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have made the European Commission aware of the preference of many UK farmers for continued use of metal ear tags for cattle.

  BSE
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the contract for research into a diagnostic test for BSE with Electrophoretic International ended; for what reasons it was not renewed; and what plans he has to place future contracts with the company. [5801]

  Mr. Rooker
  MAFF has a collaborative agreement with Electrophoretic International (EI) which was effective from 22 December 1995 for one year. Certain clauses of the agreement continue to operate. MAFF will continue to treat the company in the same way as all other bodies in relation to research and supply of materials. There are no plans for any further contracts with EI.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis the contract between his Department for research into a diagnostic test for BSE was tendered; how many other tenders were received; and what was the role of Ministers in the decision to award the contract to Electrophoretic International. [5800]

  Mr. Rooker
  The nature of the agreement between MAFF and Electrophoretic International (EI) was one of collaboration. The Ministry did not commission any work from EI. This was not a "contract to develop a diagnostic test" and a tendering process was not relevant.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the contract between his Department and Electrophoretics International covering work to develop a diagnostic test for BSE and a copy of his Department's evaluation of the work. [5798]

  Mr. Rooker
  MAFF has no contract with Electrophoretics International (EI) to develop a diagnostic test for BSE. We did, however, have an agreement with 154
  EI which was one of collaboration. As required by the terms of this agreement, we wrote to EI on 14 March requesting their agreement in writing to our placing a copy in the Library of the House. EI are currently reviewing their position in the light of their commercial position.

  Since no work was commissioned by MAFF from EI, no evaluation has been made.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been paid to Electrophoretics International by his Department for work on a diagnostic test for BSE. [5802]

  Mr. Rooker
  No money was paid to Electrophoretics International as the Ministry had not commissioned any work from them.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings took place between his Department and representatives of Electrophoretics International(a) prior to the contract for research into a diagnostic test for BSE being let, (b) during the lifetime of the contract and (c) after the expiry date of the contract; and if he will place copies of the papers and minutes of these meetings in the Library. [5799]

  Mr. Rooker
  The agreement was signed on 22 December 1995 and has not expired in respect of all its provisions. MAFF officials attended two meetings with Electrophoretics International (EI) representatives prior to the signing of the agreement and two meetings subsequently. This is in addition to contact between scientists from Veterinary Laboratory Agency, Weybridge and EI on research collaboration as provided for in the agreement.

  Under the terms of the agreement, we would need the consent of EI before papers on such meetings could be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which(a) companies and (b) other bodies have been commissioned by his Department to undertake research into a diagnostic test for BSE. [5797]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following organisations have been funded by MAFF to undertake work into finding a diagnostic test for BSE:

  Veterinary Laboratory Agency

  Institute for Animal Health

  Birmingham University

  155

  London Hospital Medical College

  Animal Health Trust

  Moredun Research Institute

  University of Edinburgh

  Institute for Grassland and Environment Research.

  A further contract with Newcastle University is still to be finalised.

  An Open Competition for research funding for development of novel methods for the diagnosis of BSE was announced by MAFF to the international scientific community in August 1996. Proposals were reviewed by independent referees and three proposals from UK research laboratories were taken up for funding in January 1997. Two further proposals are being followed up; a joint proposal from two Swiss companies (Paul Scherrer Institute and CSEM, Centre Suisse D'Electronique Etude Microtechnique, S.A.) and the California Institute of Technology.

  Hunt Kennels
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risk to public health from hunt kennels which are assessed to be unsatisfactory under the BSE enforcement programme. [5669]

  Mr. Rooker
  No formal assessment has been made of any possible risk to public health arising from failings identified during State Veterinary Service (SVS) audits of the controls under the Specified Bovine Material (SBM) Order 1997. Hunt kennels are required to remove SBM from the carcases of fallen stock which they take from farms and stain and dispatch it under controlled conditions for eventual rendering or incineration. Failings identified by the SVS have related to items such as inadequate staining, storage or record-keeping. These do not pose a risk to public health. Nevertheless immediate remedial action is required to be taken by the operator in all cases, and is subject to a further unannounced visit by the SVS shortly afterwards to check that it has been carried out. Hunt kennels are not permitted to sell for human consumption any of the remainder of the meat recovered from carcases. This is for feeding to the hounds only.

  Cumbria Fisheries
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers he has in relation to appointments to Cumbria Fisheries. [5823]

  Mr. Morley
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food appoints six members of the Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee. Five fishermen representing as wide a range of interests and geographical distribution within the District as possible and one person with appropriate environmental expertise, have just been appointed for the four-year period ending on 30 June 2001.

  Cattle (Payments)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of small weight payments to cattle owners. [6082]
  156
  Mr. Rooker
  Cattle slaughtered under the Over 30 Months Scheme are eligible for a weight-based payment, currently worth just under 65 pence per kilogram, irrespective of their overall weight. With effect from 4 August payments will be restricted to a maximum weight of 560 kg per animal and the rate for cows will be reduced to a little under 58 pence per kilogram.

  Cattle Cull (Compensation)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the disparity in compensation for cull cattle between(a) small cattle, (b) Holsteins and (c) pedigree continental cattle. [6081]

  Mr. Rooker
  There is no disparity. At present all cattle slaughtered under the Over 30 Months Scheme attract the same rate of compensation per kilogram. However, with effect from 4 August the payment rate for cull cows will be approximately 7 pence per kilogram lower than the rate applying to all other cattle slaughtered under the scheme and payments will be restricted to a maximum weight of 560 kg per animal.

  Seed Companies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the purchase of seed companies by transnational chemical companies. [6003]

  Mr. Rooker
  Seed production and marketing is increasingly and international business. It is essential that companies have a sufficiently large base to service these needs. I shall continue to monitor the activities of around 1,100 seed merchants, processors and packers who are registered with the Ministry in England and Wales.

  Drift Nets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of (i) the numbers of(a) whales, (b) dolphins, (c) sharks, (d) turtles and (e) birds caught by accident in drift nets in 1996, and (ii) the percentage of those in each category caught by fishermen of each EU member country; and if he will make a statement. [6004]

  Mr. Morley
  The information available is from 1995 when Sea Marnmal Research Unit observers on the nine English boats in the North-east Atlantic high seas tuna drift net fishery observed 62 hauls. Reported by-catch included:

  Number

  (a) Whales

  0

  Dolphins

  46 (from which figure SMRU estimated that the total by-catch by the UK fleet was 165 dolphins)

  (c) Turtles

  8(of which 6 were returned alive to the sea)

  (d) Birds

  9

  157
  The observers also reported 1,163 sharks caught, but the majority of these were landed and sold. I do not have equivalent figures for captures by the tuna fishing vessels of other countries.

  I am currently considering our policy towards high seas drift nets.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make it his policy to press for an EU-wide ban on the use of drift nets; [6006]

  (2) what is his policy in respect of the use of drift nets and the capture of non-target species in such nets. [6008]

  Mr. Morley
  It is important to distinguish between the types of drift net in use. Coastal salmon drift nets and other small scale inshore drift nets are not believed to have much, if any, adverse environmental impact. The only high seas drift net fishery in which UK vessels take part is the seasonal North-East Atlantic tuna fishery. There is evidence that these drift nets do capture non-target species.

  I am currently considering our policy towards high seas drift nets.

  Scheme

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997 (To 30 June)

  Farms Grants2

  1,095

  1,655

  1,086

  687

  803

  60

  West Penwith ESA

  200

  200

  200

  200

  200

  257

  Cuntryside Stewardship2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  888

  223

  Objective 5b2

  —

  —

  —

  116

  238

  135

  2 Includes applications and claims for both Devon and Cornwall, Since 1992 all applications and claims for Devon and Cornwall under the Integrated Administration and Control System, the Arable Area Payments Scheme, the Beef Special Premium Scheme, Cattle Passports, the Suckler Cow premium Scheme, the Sheep Annual Premium Scheme, Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances, the Dartmoor and Blackdown Hills ESAs and to her environmental schemes have been processed at the Ministry's Regional Service Centre at Exeter.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents of food poisoning have been attributed to the sale and consumption of New York dressed poultry in each of the last five years. [5312]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no record of any incident of food poisoning implicating New York dressed poultry during the last five years. Although the majority of food poisoning outbreaks are investigated the cause of infection is not always identified. For single (sporadic) cases it is not feasible to investigate the infective vehicle.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many payments of £1 million or more were made under the Arable Area Payments Scheme in 1996. [6300]

  Mr. Rooker
  Four.

  MAFF Service Centres
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) which organisations were consulted over his decision to centralise his Department's South West Regional Service Centre's operation at Exeter; [6171]

  (2) what has been the cost of maintaining regional service centre activity in Truro in each year since its establishment in 1992. [6172]

  Mr. Rooker
  None. We have taken this decision to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department, Maintaining the unit at Truro has cost the taxpayer an additional £100,000 a year (at current prices) since 1992.

  Grant Applications (Truro)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many grant applications have been processed by staff at his Department's Truro office in each year since its establishment in 1992. [6170]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following numbers of applications and claims have been processed at the Truro office since 1992:

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the dumping of radioactive waste in Beaufort's Dyke. [6461]

  Mr. Rooker
  Documents recently discovered in the Public Record Office show that small quantities of laboratory waste and luminous materials which fall within the definition of low or intermediate level radioactive waste were dumped in Beaufort's Dyke during the 1950s. The"report of the Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the North East Atlantic" by Professor F. G. T. Holliday, which was placed in the library of the House on its publication in 1984 and on which Ministers have relied in answering subsequent questions in this House, makes no reference to such activities.
  159
  Naturally it is regretted that the House was given inaccurate information in the past. Copies of the documents have now been placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament. Further searches of the archive records are being undertaken as a matter of urgency and if any new information comes to light we will make it public.
  160
  Monitoring undertaken regularly since the early 1960s confirms that this dumping had no measurable effect on radioactivity levels in the area which remain well within internationally agreed safety levels. From 1963 all dumping of radioactive waste was restricted to waters at least 2000m deep and from 1982 the UK ceased all dumping of radioactive waste at sea.

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

Lord Kelvedon
The Right Honourable Henry Paul Guinness Channon, having been created Baron Kelvedon, of Ongar in the County of Essex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Walker of Worcester and the Baroness Rawlings.
Lord Henniker—Took the Oath.

Public Health Laboratory Service
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Iltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the Public Health Laboratory Service.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the status of the Public Health Laboratory Service as a non-departmental public body of the Department of Health. I know that when the previous government were in office the noble Baroness had some concerns that the PHLS might be privatised. I can assure your Lordships that that will not happen under this Government.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reassuring reply. There is a problem of infections which are resistant to antibiotics and which are now occurring all over the world. Does the noble Baroness agree that the PHLS should maintain the highest standards? Can she assure the House that there will be no cutbacks and no fragmentation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the PHLS and the Government take seriously the whole question of antibiotic resistant infections. Guidelines on the matter were issued to the National Health Service in 1994. We expect that shortly there will be revision of those guidelines. I know that the PHLS is co-operating with our European partners in this area. I hope that means that the highest standards will be maintained both as regards national and international surveillance.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me that the PHLS provides one of the finest independent services in the world and is truly the guardian of the nation's health? As 50 per cent. of
82
its funding comes directly from the department, can she give an assurance that the PHLS is not robbed to pay for the new food standards agency?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I naturally agree with the noble Baroness as regards the high standard of work of the PHLS. I hope that my previous replies to the noble Baroness have reassured her on that matter. I understand that PHLS expenditure in 1997–98 will be about £115 million, of which just half is funded directly by the Department of Health and the Welsh Office. The rest is made up from independent contracts with the NHS. Of course, we hope that there will be considerable co-operation with the new food standards agency. The implications of the funding are yet to be resolved in detail but I am sure that that will not affect the quality of the PHLS work.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, in view of the importance of epidemiology in the Public Health Laboratory Service, is the noble Baroness happy with the number of epidemiologists already employed and the number being trained for the service?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe there are about 3,400 staff working for the PHLS across the network of laboratories and epidemiology centres within the country. Of course it is important that we maintain those high standards, as I hope I conveyed in answer to the two noble Baronesses. High levels of training and high levels of resources for those working within the service are important to maintain the kind of quality of standards we want to see both in the epidemiology and the microbiology services.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, has the Minister any progress report on the worrying situation of the E.coli infection in Scotland which seems to have occurred in a small area?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, the James Report was published quite recently. We are still looking at the consultation process which was carried out after the James Report was published. We shall act on that once the consultation has been considered.

Pension Sharing
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Youngasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to publish the draft Bill on pension sharing on divorce.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I think it fitting that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who helped me harry the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is now (in the nicest possible way) harrying me.

83
We all want pension sharing. It is fair; it recognises the contribution of both spouses to family income; and it improves pension income in retirement, especially of women. We shall be publishing a draft Bill during the coming parliamentary Session to help make sure that the legislation is sound. Our aim is to do so by the early part of next year so that we can meet our implementation target of April 2000.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, I also thank her for the letter she sent me on the matter. As she would expect, I am somewhat concerned by her Answer. Is she aware that it had been the intention of the previous Government to publish a Bill this coming November? From her reply, it appears that she will publish only draft legislation. Given the length of time that any legislation takes, can the noble Baroness satisfy us that we shall see pension sharing in force by the year 2000?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I, too, am anxious to see the April 2000 target delivered. However, the noble Baroness will know that the current Government face extreme pressure on the legislative timetable. Almost every department in government has had to lose to subsequent Sessions Bills they would have wished to have seen in the first Session. The Department of Social Security is no different in that respect from other departments.
As Members of the former Government Front Bench will be aware, the Bill is technically very complex and needs the support of the pension industry and lawyers. The Pensions Management Institute has said that getting the legislation right is more important than getting it through quickly.
I have checked on the timetable. Had we taken the Bill through Parliament this Session I doubt whether that would have allowed us to have improved much on the April 2000 target.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, are sufficient resources being employed to ensure that this legislation gets through as quickly as possible? We all have the same objective in mind: to get the legislation through properly as quickly as possible. But I agree with my noble friend Lady Young. I am slightly perturbed by the use of the word "draft". I hope that all resources are put behind this new department.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I, too, share the noble Baroness's concern. I am satisfied that we have sufficient staff for this. I am also satisfied that the draft Bill which will be published early in the new year will for the first time allow us to engage those players—the industry, the legal profession, women's organisations, the British Diplomatic Spouses Association, Fairshares, and the like—to be able to consult on a draft Bill. It is the first time that that has been done in the DSS. We are putting the emphasis on consultation prior to the final Bill going into Parliament rather than spending the time on the implementation
84
period thereafter. That is how we are balancing the issue given the pressures on the legislative timetable that I am sure noble Lords will appreciate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend asked the Minister whether there are adequate resources. The Minister replied in terms of staff. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the delay has anything to do with the cost? Are the Government able to meet that cost in their proposed budgeting, and, if so, roughly what might that cost be?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there are potential costs to the Government as an employer were people employed by the Government enabled to take their share of pension splitting out of the scheme. That is why we entirely support the previous Administration's proposals—I believe that they were supported by the entire House—that where one is dealing with unfunded schemes, as with the Civil Service and the like, former spouses become scheme members of the existing scheme and may not take their money out.
As for the rest of the additional cost, it is certainly true that there may be implications for tax relief for the Inland Revenue on the level of pension splitting and the headroom between that and tax relief. But clearly that in itself depends on the financial arrangements that will circumscribe the tax relief of pensions over the next 50 years. Against that, there are clear savings which will come from floating up many women—they would otherwise be on income support—from being dependent on benefit in old age.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, having listened to that rather complicated reply, would it not be easier to stay married?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it may be easier, but whether that is in the nature of harmony is another matter.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall her impatience with me last year when I suggested that this was a difficult issue? Does she recall dividing your Lordships' House successfully against me putting in a clause in the divorce Bill which would have implemented pension splitting almost immediately—a clause long in principle and very short in detail? Was she wrong when she said that pension splitting was a simple thing to do and that I was just dragging my feet? If she was wrong, I hope she will say that she was wrong and accept that I was right to say that it was difficult.
However, having said that it was difficult, am I right in saying that a Green Paper and a White Paper were produced by me and that we were ready to move? Is the noble Baroness telling me that we shall not have a Bill until the 1998–99 Session, and that a whole year is to

85
elapse? Is the noble Baroness satisfied that she is doing what she pleaded in your Lordships' House for government to do a year ago on this issue?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am being advised by my noble friends to answer two of the noble Lord's questions, but that would be such a pity. I would much prefer to answer as many as possible.
The problem was created by the noble Lord when he as Minister had to be persuaded through two separate Bills—first, a Pensions Bill and, secondly, a Family Law Bill—to enshrine in legislation the commitment of this House to pension sharing. Had the Minister and the Government of the day not resisted pension sharing for as long as they did so that it took the combined efforts of the entire House to persuade and overwhelm the Minister, no doubt we would have been further forward than we are today.
On the second of the noble Lord's questions—or was it the seventh?—yes, I am as confident as I can be that we shall meet our target date of April 2000. However, given the pressure on legislative time as well as the willingness to consult, that seems to us the most practical way forward.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many of us welcome the idea of publishing a Bill in draft? That will probably avoid the problems associated with the Child Support Agency, to take a single example.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is absolutely right. Too often over the past 18 years we have seen badly drafted legislation in which the Government of the day resisted all the amendments from the Opposition Benches. That has subsequently meant, as with the CSA, that we have had to have regulations every six months, and a new Bill every 12 months, in order to produce the legislation which should have been properly drafted in the first place. We do not wish to see that happening to this Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as we appear to have the time, perhaps I may ask a further question. Can the noble Baroness explain why she insisted that her amendment should be put to a Division and was won on the Bill, if the whole issue was as difficult as she suggests?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, because I had no confidence that the government of the day would deliver.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the Minister said that she believes in pension splitting. Does she agree that there is another group of women who remain married but who would benefit greatly from pension splitting at the stage of their husband's retirement? Will she consider that point together with other matters?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me; it may be my fault, but
86
I am not entirely sure that I understood the purport of the question. Was she referring to judicial separation or the problems associated with earmarking?
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I was referring to the wives who remain married but who, for fiscal reasons, would benefit if their husbands were able to share their pensions because the tax would be different. Very often those wives contributed towards their husbands' occupations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise for misunderstanding the purport of the question. The noble Baroness is right, there is always the problem that if the financial arrangements of a marriage are broken up and two people are treated as though they were single, they are in a different financial situation from the one where they are married. But against that, it must be said that married couples enjoy a whole array of financial advantages under the law—perfectly properly, in my view—which more than compensates for that.

Bus Lanes: Effectiveness
3 p.m.
The Earl of Bradfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that bus lanes operate efficiently and effectively.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, buses are a vital part of the transport systems in our towns and cities. Bus lanes help to keep buses moving in traffic but are often blocked by illegal use. My department is researching new ways of giving buses priority in traffic and of enforcing existing bus lanes. The recently announced review of bus policy will consider options for improving the effectiveness of bus lanes.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that realistic reply. Are the Government aware that major delays are caused by delivery vehicles obstructing bus lanes throughout the day, forcing buses to pull out to get round them? That defeats the purpose of bus lanes. Will the Government consider adopting the system operating successfully in several major Continental cities, where delivery times are limited to the hours between midnight and 6 a.m.?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Earl is right to highlight the problem of delivery vehicles blocking bus lanes. The Government have considered the problem, and it concerns us. However, requirements for access to frontage businesses— particularly on red routes—need to be taken into account at the stage of bus lane planning and during consultation. Normally bus lanes operate only during peak periods, that is, between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning and between 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock in the evening. We are aware that on the Continent bus lanes usually operate all day and that deliveries must be

87
made at night. But that would cause a considerable burden to frontage businesses. We wish to concentrate on enforcing the existing times for bus lanes.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that tourist coaches frequently park in the bus lanes immediately opposite your Lordships' House? Is there any general rule exempting tourist coaches from the rules that apply to every other mortal?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware of the exact legal position with regard to tourist coaches. I will write to the noble Lord with the details. There are exemptions to the bus lane prohibition, for example, pedal cyclists, but I do not know the details, so I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am one of the many motor cyclists in your Lordships' House. Can the Minister give any encouragement to motor cyclists that the Government will consider allowing them to use bus lanes?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the experiment in Bristol was inconclusive. Motor cyclists are not normally permitted to use bus lanes for safety reasons. There is, of course, a major public transport review and I have no doubt that, through the associations representing motor cyclists, the noble Lord will wish to make his case. But at the moment motor cycles are not allowed.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, can the noble Baroness comment on the experiment of equipping buses in London with cameras? Do the Government believe in encouraging it? It happens in other cities which have terrible traffic problems, just like London.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the use of additional security cameras to monitor the illegal use of bus lanes at prohibited times is to be extended. My honourable friend Glenda Jackson, the Minister in another place, has referred to the importance of an event at the end of July to draw attention to the illegal use of bus lanes and to the enforcement that will be possible by the proper authorities through the use of security cameras.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a problem just as serious as parked lorries and cars in bus lanes arises when cars are driven illegally in bus lanes, blocking the yellow boxes? Can she tell the House who is responsible for the enforcement of bus lane regulations and whether the Government have any plans for extending them?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, traffic wardens are responsible for dealing with the
88
problem of the illegal use of bus lanes. I have seen such enforcement being undertaken regularly in the bus lanes outside your Lordships' House.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, are we not perhaps looking at the problem the wrong way round? Should we not encourage the free use of essential vehicles all day long while providing limited facilities for private cars?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, that is the kind of issue that will be put forward and discussed as part of the review of transport policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, states from a sedentary position that everything is being reviewed. Perhaps much needs to be reviewed after 18 years of the previous government's policies, not least with regard to public transport. The review will offer the opportunity for all interested groups and representatives of interested parties to put forward measures. But it is clear that something must be done, particularly when we consider the effect on children's health of the totally unbridled use of the private car in urban areas.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the major cause of congestion is not bus lanes but the deregulation of public transport by the previous government? Does she agree that all our towns and cities are jammed full of buses of all shapes and sizes? What do the Government feel about that?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is widespread concern about the results of deregulation of public transport outside London because of the previous government's policies. When producing a White Paper for an integrated transport strategy, following consultation, we will consider this important area. My noble friend is right. In all too many cases people in suburban areas and particularly in rural areas have had their services reduced because it is in the interests of the operators to compete for the most financially profitable routes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that 24-hour bus lanes have been operating in Reading for some while? They are a success, for the simple reason that people—certainly those who live in Reading—know that bus lanes are bus lanes and it is an offence for others to drive in them. Will the noble Baroness consider the Reading situation? It is not an experiment. Will she also consider whether contraflow bus lanes might help the flow of public transport, particularly in London and other big cities?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the fact that in Reading, as in many other local authority areas, successful plans have been put into practice which suit the local circumstances. I am sure my noble friend will agree that much depends on the geography of a place

89
and the pattern of travel within it. But in cities and towns as diverse as Reading and Edinburgh very successful local schemes have been put into effect.

Funding Agency for Schools
3.10 p.m.
Lord Henleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they are advertising for a new chairman and board for the Funding Agency for Schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the terms of appointment of the present chairman, Sir Christopher Benson, and six other members of the board of the Funding Agency for Schools expire at the end of September. We have invited applications to fill these posts. That is consistent with the code and guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This is based on the very helpful recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. The remaining eight members of the board have terms of appointment extending at least to next March and, in four cases, beyond that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if, as we understand, grant-maintained schools are to be emasculated and the funding for grant-maintained schools is to come from the LEAs, what function will the FAS (Funding Agency for Schools) have in the future? What then will be the necessity for appointing a new board and a new chairman to the FAS? Might it therefore be advisable to retain the existing members and board until after such time as the noble Baroness and the Government have made a decision on the future of grant-maintained schools and the FAS?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord opposite that it was his government who decided to extend the appointments of the members of the funding agency for just six months. In fact, it is entirely consistent with Nolan rules, when making a second appointment following an initial one, and perfectly reasonable to consider whether an appointment should be terminated or whether the person in that post should be reappointed.
So far as concerns the "emasculation" of grant-maintained schools, such is not our intention. We shall introduce legislation to change the status of grant-maintained schools and are discussing with the agency what that will mean for it. In the meantime, the agency will continue to have very important functions to carry out and will need a properly constituted board to oversee them. That board will have to continue its work for quite some time since, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Bill to make the changes will not be introduced until, at the earliest, some time in November and possibly later. It will be a large Bill and will take some time to go through both Houses of Parliament.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the expertise that has been built up by the
90
Funding Agency for Schools in York will be retained and not wasted, if a new chairman and board are constituted? Can she also say, if a new board is constituted, whether it will still be based in York and so preserve the opportunities there for the jobs of some 150 to 200 persons?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I have already explained, the agency will continue to carry out its functions for quite a long time. So it will be necessary to retain the expertise of those staff who work in it. We are currently discussing with the agency what the change of status of GM schools will eventually mean for it; the position of the agency staff will need to be considered as part of that process. We have no intention of removing the agency, and those who work in the agency in York, from that city.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recollect that in the early 1980s chairmen and vice-chairmen of public bodies who were faintly suspected of holding liberal views were culled with an intensity and ruthlessness appropriate to cattle with mad cow disease?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I remember it well.

Imperial College Bill
3.15 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
3.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Referendum in Scotland]:
The Chairman of Committees: I should inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint") and insert ("2nd October 1997").
The noble Lord said: This is but a small amendment to start the ball rolling on this important piece of legislation. It seeks to insert the date of 2nd October 1997. The other

91
amendment linked to Amendment No. 1 will mean that the Welsh referendum will also be held on 2nd October 1997.
The Committee has probably noticed that I do not attempt to delay the referendum by putting in the year 1998, 1999 or even 2000. That is unlike pension splitting on divorce (about which we have just spoken), which will go on into the rather dim and distant future. It will pinpoint in all our minds when this important referendum is to take place.
Indeed, the Government might find it useful—I am always in the business of trying to help the Government in the new configuration of this Chamber—if they have a target date at which to aim for the White Paper, for example, and for all the preparations that will be necessary in order to conduct the referendum. It seems to me, therefore, that 2nd October might be a very helpful date for them.
Equally, we must consider all those people who will run the campaigns on this referendum. There is of course the potential for four campaigns in Scotland and one campaign in England—unless we accept some of the other amendments, when there will be the potential for many other campaigns in Wales as in Scotland. But essentially as the proposal is before us, we should have a "No, no" campaign, a "Yes, yes" campaign, a "No, yes" campaign and a "Yes, no" campaign. Those members of the Committee who are not too long away from school will remember the question about tossing two coins: heads-heads, heads-tails, tails-heads and tails-tails—and the chances of gaining the desired outcome on each of those events. The referendum in Scotland is a little like that. The referendum in Wales is simpler, at least for the moment, and only requires a "Yes" or a "No" vote.
So there could be four campaigns, with four campaign managers and four teams. They, it seems to me, need time and certainty about when the referendum will take place. Then there are all the returning officers and no doubt we shall discuss them in a day or two when we come to the schedules incorporated into the Bill, which were previously draft orders, draft orders which would have kept the Committee here well into August. It seems a little careless on the part of the Government to plan like that. But I feel that the returning officers would find it helpful to know that they are aiming for 2nd October. Then there are all our friends in television, radio, the press and so on who, equally, want to know how to plan.
The point about the next two months, August and September, is exactly that: they are August and September. They are holiday months, especially August. I remember that when I suggested that we consulted on some consultation document and I named the month of August as one of the two or three months during which the discussions should take place the reaction of the then Opposition was predictable: how dare I suggest that people could possibly meet in August and discuss these great issues, whatever they may be? But this is a seriously great issue: whether to say "Yes, yes", "Yes, no", "No, no", or "No, yes"—I confuse myself when I think of all the options.
This is a seriously great issue and in Scotland we are being asked to look at it during the month of August. While August may not be the peak holiday month for those resident in Scotland—I must not call them Scots; that appears to bring the accusation of ethnicity (I am happy to be called a Scot but perhaps that is politically incorrect nowadays)—many people in Scotland do take their holidays in August. Equally, a lot of people who are resident in Scotland are busy making money from people who take their holidays in August. They do not have time to consider the White Paper or all the literature that will be produced.
The month of August therefore is not the best possible month during which we should study this issue and vote. The noble Lord may tell me that the Government have not decided on which date we shall vote. I shall find that fairly amazing, but perhaps not surprising. I keep reading reports suggesting 4th September, 11th September, 18th September and even 25th September. In this amendment I propose 2nd October. I believe that that would give everybody a clear date towards which to work. It would also give those of us who are resident in Scotland the month of September and possibly part of August in which to study the issues and listen to the campaigns. It would give the people campaigning a proper time to campaign on this important issue.
I have little doubt that, when the referendum is over and if the Government side win that referendum, we will be told, when we analyse critically any Bill introduced afterwards, that the people have already spoken and we should not discuss the issue further; we should simply agree with what the Government are doing because the people agreed it in the referendum. In those circumstances, therefore, the referendum is extremely important. It will decide the tactics conducted both here and down the corridor by the government party.
Some Members of the Committee may think that I ought to have put the date as the first Thursday in November, or even perhaps the first Thursday in the new year. I have not checked my diary to see if that is New Year's Day. If so, it might be an appropriate day on which to hold the referendum. However, an end point would be a good idea and the end point I suggest would give us two months. We do not know when the White Paper will be published. I anticipate and hope that it will come during the course of this month, which will give us in this Chamber and those in the other place time to debate it. It will give my fellow residents of Scotland time to discuss the issues and listen to the arguments, taking into account any holidays that they may have. It will then give us time to assess what we should do before 2nd October.
I hope therefore that, for both Scotland and Wales where this is an extremely important issue, the Government will accept Amendment No. 1. Just in case they start in a negative frame of mind and do not accept the amendment, perhaps they will tell the Committee and the world at large—perhaps not the whole world

93
at large but just the United Kingdom and particularly Scotland and Wales—on which date they intend to hold the referendum. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should have thought that the Government would welcome Amendment No. 1. It adds credibility to their intentions. In many statutes over the years power has been given to have an appointed day made by Order in Council, but such appointed days have sometimes never been appointed. That is because the Government decided, perhaps in order to implement a manifesto commitment or to raise hopes in the public mind when they have no intention of going ahead, to put the power into the hands of whoever makes the Order in Council—Her Majesty, of course, makes it on advice.
Surely it would be better to make the position clear, as my noble friend Lord Mackay said. If the Government say that they do not know when the arrangements will be completed for the holding of the referendums, I shall find that rather strange. Do they need more than three months to do that? They have the whole of July—today is the first—August and September. We are accustomed to elections and have even had referendums in this country. Surely the administrative machinery could be put into force and the printing done quite easily within three months.
I hope that the Government will realise that the amendment is in their interest. In relation to the date chosen, 2nd October, many of us know from experience that the climate in Scotland is often rather good at that stage of the autumn and the days have not become too short for people to travel if they have to travel to polling stations. It is therefore a sensible day. It would surprise me if the Government do not accept the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Looking at Amendments Nos. 1 and 23, I am not convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said at col. 1223 on 17th June, when he said that a different day should be chosen for Wales as opposed to Scotland.
What has been learnt since 1979? It was all right then to hold referendums on the same day. It is quite clear that the issues are different—of course they are; one is to be a legislative assembly and the other is not. However, I am not convinced by what is proposed and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say as to why the days should be different.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I oppose Amendments Nos. 1 and 23 for the very reason to which the noble Lord referred a moment ago. The amendments suggest that the same day should be chosen for the referendum in Wales as that for Scotland.
The experience in 1979 was that the national media— the press and television—gave twice as much coverage to the Scottish referendum as they did to the Welsh referendum. That is particularly difficult because, whereas more than 90 per cent. of the newspapers that circulate in Scotland are printed in Scotland, only 13 per cent. of the newspapers that circulate in Wales are actually printed in Wales. It is therefore essential, if the Welsh electorate are to have a proper opportunity to consider the issues that arise in the referendum that
94
pertains to them, that there should be a period of time after the Scottish referendum when the national press and media can concentrate upon the issues in Wales. It is for that reason that I oppose those two amendments.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I confess that I am extremely disappointed in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I had hoped that he would explain why he chose 2nd October of all dates. We heard generalities as to why he did not like September but did not hear why it should be 2nd October.
The 2nd October is a particularly bad date. It is Rosh Hashana—the Jewish New Year. I understand that no practising member of the Jewish community would vote on such a date. It would therefore be only proper for noble Lords opposite to withdraw the amendment. I am sure that they did not intend to disenfranchise the Jewish communities of Scotland and Wales and that the amendment was tabled in total ignorance of the significance of the date. I therefore ask that they withdraw the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: As regards the point that has just been made, I would be perfectly happy to make it a week later, provided it was also considered whether there was a Moslem or other holiday. I speak as the Patron in Chief of the Scottish Pakistani Association, which is by far the largest ethnic community in Scotland. So I do think that a week later might be better.
Perhaps I may remind the Government and the Front Bench spokesmen what happened on the last occasion. While the Scotland Bill was going through in this House I recommended that there should be at least a six-week interval. I am glad to say that that was accepted by the government. The referendum order came before both Houses on 5th December. That had already been published a week or two beforehand and it had the date of polling day—1st March. So on the last occasion both Houses and the country had at least three months' notice of the date. I just remind the Government Front Bench of what happened on the last occasion.
Earl Russell: Before I address the amendment I should like to take half a minute to congratulate the Welsh Conservative Party on its conversion to proportional representation. I think it is quite right. It has suffered a grave injustice that 20 per cent. of the vote has led to no representatives in Parliament. I simply hope that that conversion is for better, for worse.
I very much hope that this is a probing amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has many times across this Chamber lectured me on the virtues of flexibility. They are not quite as great as the noble Lord has sometimes argued but I have always conceded that they do exist. As soon as you fix anything finely in primary legislation, then you need primary legislation to reverse it.
Perhaps I may take a hypothesis which is not in fact quite impossible. Suppose there was an earthquake. There has been a serious earthquake in London. There

95
could be one in Edinburgh. It would be a considerable inconvenience to have to put through new primary legislation to alter the date of the referendum. It is that kind of inflexibility which one suffers if one puts things into primary legislation that are really too small to belong there. As to why the noble Lord took the date of 2nd October, I am tempted to a perhaps unworthy suspicion that he did it because 3rd October to the Anglo-Saxons was a notoriously unlucky day.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It seems to me that the important point about the amendment is not the specific date but that there should be time between the publication of the White Paper and the date of the referendum. That really is important. It is important because not only do the voters have to become acquainted with what is in the White Paper so that they will know what they are voting about, but those who will have an opinion on the subject which might enlighten the voters need to know too.
I was surprised when I telephoned the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ask whether it had anything to say about the timetable. The person to whom I spoke said that the convention had no view on that; all it wanted was a referendum as soon as possible. That strikes me as very strange. I do not think that the convention can have thought very much about what will be in the White Paper unless it knows—it may know already—and thinks that it does not matter. It seems to me that it is likely to affect the convention very much and that the voters will need to know what it thinks about the matter. The Law Society of Scotland, to which I also spoke, told me of one or two concerns it has about the referendums Bill and the White Paper, but it, too, did not have a view about the timetable.
The schools in the area where I live are sending their children home tomorrow. A good many local authorities in Scotland will be sending home their children tomorrow; others will be sending them home a week or perhaps two weeks later. Where I live they are coming back on 18th August. In Scotland, 4th August is a bank holiday, so it stands to reason that many families will take their holidays in the last week of July or the first or second week of August. That means that whenever they are going away, whether now or in the next two or three weeks, they will not see the White Paper until they come back. There will be a very short time during which they can study the White Paper.
Likewise, many people who are councillors or lawyers tend to take their holidays slightly later because they are interested in what is going on in Parliament. They do not want to be away when it happens. They will be at home when the White Paper is published but they will not be available to advise the public when the public comes home. There is quite a long spell when people will simply not be there.
The most important point of all about the referendum is that people should know what they are voting about. Later in the Committee stage we shall be discussing other aspects of that question, but the timetable really matters. I understand the problem about 2nd October. I have to say that 9th October is a time when my part of the world will probably be having potato holidays, so
96
it is all very difficult. There must be time between the two dates. When we hear the date of the publication of the White Paper, it will be very much easier to discuss the issue.
Lord Tebbit: We are engaged in a slightly academic and artificial debate and the matter could be cleared up very quickly indeed. I am in favour of a degree of flexibility in these matters. The noble Earl has put the argument for that well. However, we are all proposing to celebrate the millennium on a date which I think was fixed a couple of thousand years ago, so one should not go overboard on that argument.
One has to be careful about dates at the beginning of October. As we know, the beginning of October is the occasion for those festivities of the conferences around the seaside. No doubt they will be particularly interesting this year, so we should not keep people away from those.
The essence of the argument which my noble friend put and which I think is in the minds of all Members of the Committee is that there should be proper time between the publication of the White Paper and the actual referendum. If we could be given some guarantees about that we would be able to reach a conclusion on this amendment very quickly indeed. That would enable us to get on with other more interesting amendments.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I could not agree more with what the last speaker has said—that we might get on to the other amendments. Whether they are interesting or whether they are there for a different purpose I would not know.
The argument that we need to have time in Scotland to think about the referendum is curious. Everyone except the Conservative Party seems to know that Scotland has been thinking of little else for the past few years. That is probably why the Conservative Party does not have a seat left in Scotland. It does not know what people are thinking. The referendum was put in as an extra precaution by the Government, who are far too over-cautious about it in my view. However, they are putting it in now, and the sooner we get the Bill through the better. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will not take seven minutes to introduce every trivial amendment he has tabled.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have put down an amendment, which appears later in the Marshalled List, making the dates of the two referendums identical. Although it has not been grouped, the debate has obviously gone over that ground. It is very important that the dates should be identical because the one that is held earlier may influence the later one, particularly if it is a larger vote than the later one. It is the Eatanswill principle which your Lordships may remember—shout with the mob; and if there are two mobs, shout with the larger one. It is exactly the same principle which in some European countries precludes opinion polls for a week or a fortnight before an election—because people tend to vote with the larger mob.

97
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who has taken to the Treasury Bench as if he had been born in a Dispatch Box, said at Second Reading—I hope that Members of the Committee will excuse me while I use a magnifying glass—
"There are different issues to be addressed and we believe that since there are discrete issues, the Scottish referendum ought to precede the Welsh one".—[Official Report, 17/6/97; col. 1223.]
It would have been equally cogent to say, "Since there are different issues we believe that the Welsh referendum should precede the Scottish one". When the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, looks back at the end of a very distinguished political and legal career, I cannot believe that he will think that that was one of his most cogent arguments.
That is the reason why the dates should be identical. It is precisely because the earlier referendum with the greater number is likely to influence the later one. Whatever the Government feel about the date, I hope that they will at any rate agree that the two referendums should be held on the same day. As regards the rest, I agree entirely with the noble Lord who said that the important thing is that there should be sufficient time between publication of the White Papers and the referendums.
I have been following what the critics recommend about summer and holiday reading: none has recommended either of the White Papers.
Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to speak at this stage, but I am encouraged by the speech that we have just heard to comment on two points. I will come back later to the powerful arguments for holding both referendums on the same day and for having adequate time before the electorate is asked to consider the issues after the White Papers have been published.
I am really prompted to my feet by the fact that the Liberal Democrat party now seems to believe that it has joined the Government Benches and spends most of its time doing the work of government Ministers. I am prompted to comment by two speeches that we have heard from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in the past few minutes. One suggests that there is no need to have these debates because everyone in Scotland knows exactly what is going to happen. I am not speaking about Scotland, but I do know a little about Wales.
The truth is that no one in Wales knows exactly what is going to happen if only because the Government themselves do not yet know how the thing is going to work and have certainly not been able to draft a White Paper yet which will explain all the details. The publication of the White Paper in Wales is an absolutely fundamental requirement if the Welsh electorate is to understand what is going on.
We do not want a misleading view of history recorded by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about what happened last time. Of course I accept the fact that the Welsh press printed in Wales is read by about only 13 per cent. of the electorate in Wales. Indeed, I made the same point when we last debated this matter. If the noble Lord really believes that the issue was not adequately debated in Wales last time, he is wrong. The issue was very
98
vigorously debated. How could it not have been when Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Donald Anderson and a whole string of other leading Labour politicians featured in the media almost daily? The reality is that the matter was very fully debated. I made a string of appearances around Wales in one form or another. I can assure the noble Lord that whatever he may have been doing at that time the people of Wales were very fully debating the issue. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, nods in agreement. So let us not perpetrate a myth at this early stage in our debate. We must have adequate time in Wales for proper consideration of a White Paper which has not yet been published for the very good reason that I do not believe the Government have decided yet what is going into it.
Earl Russell: I ask the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to take note that the degree of apparent agreement between these Benches and the Government Benches is very largely the achievement of the Conservative Party and were Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, for example, leading for the Conservative Party, we might be having a very different and much more interesting debate.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I wish to make clear that I share the views of all Members of the Committee who have spoken. We need adequate time between publication of the White Paper and the holding of the referendum. Where we part company is that I am absolutely and totally confident that there will be adequate time between publication of the White Paper and the date of the referendum as it is being considered by the Government at the present time.
What astonishes me is the attitude of Members of the Committee opposite in asking for adequate time for a long campaign. I thought that they had learnt a lesson from long campaigns. When one looks at the history of general elections in this country, campaigns normally run for three weeks until polling day. The general election date this year was the brainchild of Conservative Central Office. It said, "We shall have a six weeks' campaign and we shall really get our message across. People will understand and they will re-elect us". Tory MPs are as scarce as hens' teeth in both Scotland and Wales after a six weeks' campaign. I believe that Members of the Committee opposite should exercise just a wee bit more caution when they talk now about the length of the campaign, given the background of their bitter experience of a long campaign earlier this year.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the objection? Is it that the date is too early or too late? Or is it that there is a date at all? Is that the objection and the reason for it, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, at Second Reading in another context, that it ties the hands of government? If that is the objection, then in these circumstances it is about right that the hands of government should be tied.
3.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be able to

99
tell us the proposed date of the referendum and of publication of the White Paper before we abandon this amendment.
We are having a referendum not on whether we are to have an Act to give schoolchildren free sweets or something like that but on a very far-reaching constitutional change which is going to affect the whole of the United Kingdom, not only Scotland. So what on earth is all the hurry about? It seems to me that a matter of this kind should be given very serious consideration not only by Parliament but also by the people of Scotland and Wales who are to vote in the referendums. They should have plenty of time. I have heard rumours that the White Paper will be published only towards the end of this month and that the referendum is to take place in early or mid-September. If that is true, then I do not consider that there is anything like adequate time for people to take in the contents of the White Paper and consider them.
Lord Rees: I have no doubt that many of our debates for the next few weeks on this issue will have echoes of what happened 20 years ago. Many Members of the Committee in this Chamber recall with painful clarity what happened then. But, of course, there is one fundamental difference. Twenty years ago, we came to a referendum after something like six or eight months of careful, detailed debate about the precise form of devolution which should obtain either north of the Border or west of Offa's Dyke. In this case we are being asked to approach the issue with nothing more than a few scrappy words in the course of the election campaign. I do not believe that that is a serious basis for serious legislation in this Parliament.
I am not over concerned with the agricultural, climatic or even religious implications of 2nd October. I am afraid that I am uninformed as to what the Druids would have thought about any particular date. But I am concerned that some of us would like to take an active part both in this House and outside. I must confess that I played a minor role 20 years ago, although it was nothing like as strenuous or distinguished as the role played by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that in Wales we have been a little less self-absorbed than some of our friends and relations north of the Border. We have not been talking day and night about the precise form of an assembly and what its powers and occupation should be. We should like to know long before we move to that kind of issue, either at Westminster or west of Offa's Dyke, exactly what is to be in the White Paper. What sort of assembly are we to have? What will be its powers and what sort of prerogatives will it be endowed with?
There are three critical dates. The first is the date of the White Paper. If the Government are serious about a referendum in the early days of the autumn—we hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will disclose the Government's hand on those critical points fairly soon—when will the White Paper be published? When shall we have an opportunity to debate the White Paper? A White Paper does not have legislative
100
significance. It is merely a few suggestions. Or, in view of the slight tinges of arrogance which have been manifested by this Government, is it perhaps a diktat which we are bound to accept? Of course, it is not. Indeed, the expression on the Minister's face is such that it shows that he will be open to argument. When are we to have the White Paper and when are we to have an opportunity to debate it? How many days will there be for debate on the White Paper? And how long after that before the referendum in either country takes place?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is much more qualified to do so, raised the issue of whether the referendums should be on the same date in both countries. I shall not touch on the almost insulting issues as to where the bigger mob is—north of the Border or west of Offa's Dyke—or whether my compatriots west of Offa's Dyke are likely to be influenced by what is said in Inverness or—dare I say?—in Orkney and Shetland where there may be a rather interesting outcome.
I support the amendment not because I am wedded to the date of 2nd October but because I want to know when the White Paper will be published for our inspection, when we shall have an opportunity to debate it, and how long will ensue afterwards before we have a referendum either in both countries or in one country.
Lord Peston: I hope Members of the Committee will forgive me for joining in the debate. I came in solely to listen as a way of passing the afternoon. I had no intention of coming out of hibernation in order to address the Committee. I assure Members opposite that I shall return immediately to hibernation. However, I have found what has been said interesting or irritating; I am not sure which.
As regards the question of time, we should pause and think. I sat on that Bench over there for 10 years and I must have used the same argument countless times. My record of being rejected was exactly 100 per cent. Members of the Committee opposite will get used to that kind of rejection over the next decade. I can tell them that you live through it and you just about maintain your sanity. Therefore, I hope that my noble friends do not remotely fall for that one or, if they do, I should like them to explain to me afterwards why they have done so when we failed so often ourselves.
However, my main interest is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, or the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, whether I am right about the consequences of what they are saying. In particular, do they now accept that there should be referendums? Is it now Conservative policy that the party supports the referendums and therefore supports this Bill? If that is the case, they will withdraw a number of amendments which are totally destructive so that we can all go home earlier. I really do want to know whether they now accept the referendums.
As regards the four outcomes, I do not wish to be as nasty as my noble friend Lord Ewing but there was a general election and I believe the population of Scotland and Wales did pronounce to a moderate degree on the matter. I ask whether the party opposite will accept categorically the outcome of the referendums when they

101
occur. I take it that my noble friend will say that we certainly shall. Given the nature of the argument and the way in which certain Members of the Committee have spoken, do I understand that we need have no doubt whatever about that? I do not believe that the question of the date is the most important problem that has ever confronted your Lordships' House. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Ewing that we must have ample time for debate. On the other hand, without boasting intellectually, I do not believe that months and months are required for even the thickest of us to absorb the issues. I want to know whether the party opposite will accept the outcome because that is quite fundamental to what we are about. If there is doubt about whether it accepts the referendums and their outcome, I do not know why Members of the Committee opposite are wasting our time.
Lord Tebbit: Before the noble Lord sits down, did he accept the outcome of the referendums last time? If so, why is he supporting all this again after the experience of 20 years ago?
Lord Peston: Yes, we did accept the outcomes last time. A great many years went by. I must remind the noble Lord that we were in opposition for quite a long time. I grew old during that period. There was a young man here originally. If the referendum goes our way, and if after 18 years the party opposite is back in power—and I do believe in the two parties taking it in turn—and it wishes to raise the issue again, although I shall not be around to listen, I believe that that would be perfectly in order.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like to say a few words in relation to the interesting question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to whether the Government and Parliament will accept the result of the referendums or either of them. In my respectful submission, the constitutional position was stated correctly by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, as Leader of the House in the other place at the time of the 1970s referendums. He said that a referendum binds a government but it does not bind Parliament. He must have meant that it binds a government morally. It does not bind Parliament so long as we have parliamentary supremacy. It is a matter for Parliament to take into account and it is a completely novel doctrine that Parliament will be bound by the result of a referendum. We would be abnegating our responsibilities.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, advances an extremely novel political doctrine. He states that the constitution can be changed now but that, heigh-ho, if someone wants to change it at another time that is all right. The noble Lord referred to a period of 18 years, but one must remember Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah. He went from 95 to five, if I remember rightly. Why not change it in three years? If that is too short perhaps five years is all right. It is irresponsible to suggest that we should treat the constitution of the United Kingdom in this way. It is said that it is all
102
right to do it now and perhaps it can be changed again in 18 years. It is irresponsible of the Government to treat the constitution of the United Kingdom in this way. It is good and great and should be cherished and looked after.
Earl Russell: I regret to say that the noble Earl is incorrect in saying that this matter is unprecedented. We need only look at the history of Reform Bills in the 19th century. When my great-grandfather introduced one in 1832 he believed that it was final. He was wrong.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to say that even the thickest of us will be able to understand what is in the White Paper. The trouble is that the noble Lord is a very clever man. I do not believe that he has any idea what it is to be thick.
Lord Peston: I knew before I entered the Chamber that I should never have come here today or joined in this debate. I must inform the noble Lady that I have been teaching for 40 years and I know all there is to know about what it is to be thick.
Lord Sewel: I start by acknowledging the friendly and constructive spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, moved his amendment. I am afraid that I must tell him that normal service has been partially resumed from these Benches. Therefore, I am unable to accept the amendment, sad as that may be to the noble Lord and his noble friends.
The Government are well apprised of the need to ensure adequate time between the publication of the White Paper and the vote on the referendum itself. We have made clear that the White Paper will be published and debated in this House before the Recess. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. That will come not after two months but about 20 years of consultation and debate certainly in Scotland and, albeit to a lesser extent, in Wales as well.
Viscount Cranborne: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Is he able to inform the House whether his undertaking means that noble Lords will be given the opportunity to debate the White Paper before the final passage of this Bill?
Lord Sewel: I add nothing further to my statement that the White Paper will be published and the debate will take place before the House rises.
A number of noble Lords referred to the lack of a gap between the Scottish and Welsh referendums. I believe that that is a matter to which we should properly return on later amendments. I acknowledge that we have not so far announced the dates of the two referendums. That is not the result of any desire to be obscure; it is based on a desire to be a little better informed about the date when this Bill is likely to receive Royal Assent. In that way we can ensure that there are early referendums consistent with providing adequate time for the necessary practical preparations to be put in place, for public debate on our proposals and for the referendum campaigns to galvanise the debate in the two countries.

103
The amendment that suggests the date 2nd October seems to me to be moved with a degree of mischievous frivolity, which is perhaps unintended. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, may not have in his diary the fact that 2nd October falls during the Labour Party conference. I do not for a moment claim that this degree of frivolity equals anything like that exhibited in another place when this Bill was discussed, but it makes the point about the difficulty of taking the date of 2nd October. I believe that the very powerful point made by my noble friend Lady Ramsay underlines the total unsuitability of focusing on one particular date. Quite simply, it is the wrong date.
We fully intend to hold the referendums before the major party conferences. However tempting and seductive noble Lords opposite may be, I will not however be pressed into setting a date for the referendums at this stage. One of the main reasons for that is that it is not yet clear when the Bill will receive Royal Assent. In our view it would be premature at this stage to speculate on possible dates.
It has been indicated that perhaps this amendment is a probing amendment. If I may take it in the spirit of a probing amendment, I happily undertake that when we return to consider the Bill at a later stage—Report stage on the basis of the currently envisaged timetable—the Government will inform noble Lords of the proposed dates for publication of the White Papers and the holding of the referendums. I hope that noble Lords can wait just that little bit longer and accept the undertaking that I have given in the helpful spirit in which it is offered.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer one question that has not yet been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Peston? Supposing the Scots vote for a Scottish parliament but against the tartan tax, what will the Government do?
Lord Sewel: Having decided on a process that involves consulting the people, it would be perverse to turn our heads away from the judgment of the people.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Lord will appreciate, I have always considered that the more important time in relation to this debate is not when the Bill finally completes its passage through your Lordships' House and Parliament but the period which elapses from the publication of the White Paper to the date of the referendum. Clearly, that is the document on which any serious and rational debate will proceed in Scotland. I shall not rehearse the problems about serious professional organisations in Scotland trying to study that paper during August. Do I understand correctly that it is only at Report stage that we will be told the date of the publication of the White Paper? Further, do I understand correctly that the referendum will be before the party conferences? Otherwise stated, it seems to me that both could take place during
104
September. Am I right in understanding that 4th September is already the Government's preferred date? If that is the case, is that a reasonable period?
Lord Sewel: The noble and learned Lord seeks to seduce me. I have said that I will not be seduced. I have made it clear that I shall remain virtuous. I will go through it again. On the basis of the current timetable, I give the undertaking that the Government fully expect to come to the House by Report stage and indicate the date of publication of the White Paper and the date of the referendum.
Lord Tebbit: It seems to me that this debate takes on an extraordinarily unreal air. Quite clearly, the noble Lord is now aware of the date on which he expects the White Paper to be published. Why can he not tell us? He has informed noble Lords that he will tell them when Report stage is reached, but it is unlikely that there is anything in the discussion on this Bill that will affect consideration of when the White Paper is to be published. What has happened to the past attachment of the party in government to freedom of information? Somewhere within the noble Lord's department is a document bearing a date. Why should we not know what it is? That is not a matter affecting state security. It may affect relationships within the Labour Party—between Ministers and their Back Benchers—which I understand are a little turbulent at times, but surely he could tell us that. If his detestation of open government is such that he is unwilling to do so, perhaps he could bring himself to tell us what he defines as the meaning, in this context, of the words "adequate time". Is "adequate time" one week, 10 weeks, or 12 weeks? Surely it is not unreasonable that, when a Minister is asked what is "adequate time", he should tell us. He must know. If he does not know, he could not use the words. If he does know, why should he conceal from us the meaning which he attaches to them?
Earl Russell: The noble Lord said that somewhere in the Minister's office there is a document with a date on. How does he know that?
Lord Tebbit: Having been in government for eight years, I know those things as of experience. I can recollect many occasions when I have had documents with dates on, and for my own reasons at times I would rather not have exposed them. But I can see no good reason why we should not now know that date and the meaning which the Minister puts to the words "adequate time".
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Lord has only to look at the clock to know why the Minister cannot answer. If we go on like this, it will be 1999 before we pass the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has drawn his presence to my attention, perhaps I might return to what he said. He described the amendment as trivial. Has he looked at the amendment

105
in the name of his noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie to which we shall come later? When we come to that will he explain how it can possibly be a serious amendment when the date upon which the referendum is to be held is considered to be trivial?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: At least my noble friend's amendment will be interesting without being nasty.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is nothing nasty about my amendment. I am trying to help the Government by pinning a date to this important referendum. I shall not hurry up as I am being urged to do by the deputy unpaid Chief Whip for the government Benches who is sitting along the row from me.
We have had an interesting debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has tempted me, it will be interesting to see the Liberal Benches putting down the amendment that Mr. James Wallace put down in the other place and took to the vote, because he thought it was serious enough. I notice that it has failed to appear on the Order Paper in this place. That is a pity, because with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, it was a serious point that was addressed by Mr. James Wallace. Unless I am persuaded otherwise in an hour or so, I do not believe that the amendment in the name of his noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie can be described as serious.
This is a serious point. We have drawn some interesting points from the Minister and from the Benches opposite. I should have known that the basic reason for not having the referendum on 2nd October is that it is during the Labour Party conference. It is a pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, did not have the hymn sheet adjusted, because is it not ridiculous that the Labour Party conference is being held at a time when some of her Jewish fellow citizens will be unable to go to it because they have more serious business to do?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I wish to make two points with which I believe the noble Lord will agree. First, I made a serious point about the Jewish New Year and the issue of voting. Secondly, there is big difference between conferences and meetings to which people of any religion can decide whether to go, the demands and rules of their own religion, and holding a national referendum in Scotland and Wales on a day when it would be known that practising members of the Jewish community would be unable to vote. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that there is a big difference.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may give help and advice to the noble Baroness; I suspect that in those circumstances she would find that people would be entitled to postal votes, which would solve the problem. Perhaps I might advise the noble Baroness not to dig too great a hole for herself. It is possible that the Government may be forced to have a referendum on 2nd October, if the White Paper's publication is delayed and it does not appear on the date which still appears to be unknown. I shall leave that aside. I should be happy
106
to return with an amendment for 9th October, despite the fact that that is during the Conservative Party conference.
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone: That is my birthday.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble and learned friend indicates that that is his birthday. That is an even better reason for having it on 9th October. I shall pick up one or two of the points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, to whom it is always interesting to listen, suggested that the amendments were destructive. I do not believe that they are.
Lord Peston: I did not mean that these amendments were, but unless I missed the point I felt that several of the later amendments did not have the constructive quality that I would normally associate with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: None of the amendments in my name would prevent the Government from having a referendum on 2nd October or at any time in September, as is their current plan. The noble Lord asked whether we would accept the outcome. He was well pulled up by my noble friend who asked him whether the Labour Party had accepted the outcome of previous referendums. My recollection is that the Labour Party continued to campaign against the European Community long after the 1975 referendum, for example, was decided. I do not want to go into that. We shall shortly be having a debate on whether or not the referendum should be advisory. That might be an important debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, could contribute.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the idea of the referendum was that it was advisory and could not bind Parliament. That is a serious point which we should address in the general context of referendums, not just this one. The Committee will appreciate that I shall be returning later to the general question of referendums and the rules that we should have for them.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy reminded the Committee that three months' notice was given on the previous occasion. If I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, a little, that may be why the Labour Party wants to make the period as short as possible: to see whether it can win this one, because on the previous one it did not do as well as it thought it was going to do.
Some Welsh points were made in relation to Amendment No. 23. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made an interesting contribution. We will no doubt return to the point. Just to establish the position— if I understand it—the noble Lord holds his fellow Welshmen in such low regard that he does not believe that they will be able to consider the issue while the Scottish referendum is going on because of the din about the Scottish referendum that will be coming from north of the Border. The Welsh will not be able to block off

107
the Scottish aspect and concentrate on the Welsh bit. I have a great deal more confidence than the noble Lord in the ability of the Welsh to see through the whole proposition.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I think that the Welsh people will see through the remarks that the noble Lord is making now.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If they read them, I hope that they will see that the point that I am making is in defence of them and against the noble Lord, who seems to think that they will be unable to consider this issue at the same time as the Scots. The only temptation for having the Welsh referendum on a different day is to allow all those excellent Labour MPs from Wales who have not signed up to this scheme the opportunity freely to express their views away from Westminster and the power of the Labour Party Whips down the corridor. That is an issue that is running at the other end of this Palace, and perhaps we need not go into it too much here.
We have been told that the Labour Party has been thinking about this for 18 years. There has been this constitutional convention. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, is a chairman of it. The noble Lord Ewing of Kirkford, is a former chairman of it. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, was its chairman. They spent hours and weeks on it. Acres of trees must have been cut down for it. It has been reported copiously in the press over the past six or seven years, I suspect. Yet, here we are and the Government still do not know whether they have a White Paper to present to us. The only conclusion that one can reach, is that they do not have a White Paper ready. I can understand if it is at the printers or at the proof stage—at least one can have some idea of it—but the Minister said that on Report he would tell us the date of its publication.
It may be of great interest to your Lordships to know that that puts it well into the 20s of July. I presume that we will have a week, with a weekend included, to consider the contents of the White Paper before we come to debate it. Therefore, those Members of the Committee who have arranged their holidays for the first week in August, and whose holiday plans I have attempted to protect elsewhere in the Marshalled List, may well have to cancel their holidays and be here to debate the White Paper. I do not find that satisfactory.
I believed that we would see the White Paper before the Report stage, not because its detail should be debated before then but, looking at a sensible timetable, because we could debate it before the end of July, which would allow both Houses of Parliament to rise. I am disappointed that the noble Lord is telling us that the publication of the White Paper is further away than I thought. I hope that it will appear around the Report stage, preferably before.
I believe that the noble Lord said that he would tell us the referendum date then. Being mindful of the many lessons I received at the knee of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the importance of primary as opposed to secondary legislation, if on Report the Government know when they want the referendum, perhaps they will table their own amendment along the lines of mine, inserting
108
their date. Flexibility is not needed for a one-off referendum. I would have accepted the noble Earl's argument if he had been talking about referendums in general, but we are debating a specific Bill. It was part of the Labour Party's manifesto, which we know is pretty Holy Writ, that a referendum is to be held in the autumn. I do not see why 2nd October is such a bad day, but I shall not put it to the test. I should hate to deprive the Benches opposite of the pleasures of the Labour Party conference by keeping them in Scotland and Wales attempting to propound the arguments in favour of a "Yes" vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I hope that on Report the Government will bring forward an amendment to primary legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("Her Majesty may by Order in Council") and insert ("the Secretary of State for Scotland may").
The noble Lord said: The amendment invites the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, to say a few words about how we shall know about the date of the referendum and how it is to be enacted. I have suggested a way in which he can do that. As this is a probing amendment, perhaps he can explain why he has chosen to do it by Order in Council as opposed to my suggestion that the Secretary of State for Scotland should make an order.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, fancied a visit to Balmoral during August in order to attend a meeting of the Council to deal with the issue. I suggest that the matter can be dealt with simply by the Secretary of State making the order or, as I have suggested, by the Minister coming forward on Report, or even at Third Reading, and tabling an amendment which lays down in primary legislation the date or dates on which we shall have the two referendums. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: I am somewhat at a loss as regards the distinction which the noble Lord is trying to make between the phrases "Her Majesty may by Order in Council" and "the Secretary of State for Scotland may". If at this stage he is laying the grounds for an argument that it would be appropriate to dispense with the orders and to incorporate them into the primary legislation, I am able to respond to him. At this stage I seek that degree of clarification from him.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not seeking to do that; it arises later in a substantive amendment which brings them all together. I am simply inviting the noble Lord to tell me why it has to be an Order in Council. If he is saying to me that it is tied into the other orders—and I suggested a way in which we might deal with them—I am happy to leave the matter there and withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 2A:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("a") and insert ("an advisory").
The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee will notice that the amendment is starred, although I submitted it last Thursday in the early evening when the House was still sitting. Apparently, it became stuck in the tabling process and was found and rescued only yesterday morning after I telephoned to find out what had happened to it. Although Members will have seen it only for the first time today, it is simple and a probing amendment.
On Second Reading I said that I understood that the 1975 referendum on staying in the EC and the 1979 referendums in England and Wales were advisory to Parliament. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, commented on that today in respect of an earlier amendment. Can the Minister confirm that this referendum is also advisory in character? Is it intended that the Government, having obtained the approval of Parliament, should decide on appropriate action when the referendum in Scotland has taken place? That would be important if the result were close or if there were a low turnout.
However, the Government have made it clear that the object of a pre-legislative referendum is to obtain a green light from the electorate in Scotland before spending much valuable parliamentary time and enlisting the energy and labour of many civil servants on what has to be a complex and intricate scheme for a new parliament. Of course, a referendum after legislation is passed, as happened previously, would be preferable and more indicative of considered opinion in Scotland. I hope that that is still an option.
The Government's reply might be that the result will not be close. The media and opinion polls in Scotland indicate that about 60 per cent. of the Scottish electorate is in favour of what is known as devolution—the general idea. I can remember a similar situation in 1976 and 1977 when about 70 per cent. of the population was reported as being in favour of the idea of devolution. In the 1979 referendum on the Scotland Act, the legislation that had been passed, the percentage in favour was only 33 per cent., with 31 per cent. against. The Labour Government of that day had approved the insertion of a 40 per cent. threshold in their Scotland Act, so under their own terms it had to be repealed. As regards this Bill, it appears that a simple majority, however small, is to be effective.
In those circumstances, I suggest that the status of the referendum should be advisory to Parliament. There are proposals in Amendments Nos. 50 and 83 on how the results might be treated. We can discuss those in due course. However, they appear much better than the threshold provisions in the Labour Government's 1978 Scotland Act. They apply to the number of electors who have voted in the referendum and not to a percentage of the electorate. The electorate is always difficult to assess precisely owing to deaths, moves and other factors.
I am not pressing for the word "advisory" to be included in the Bill. I shall be satisfied if the Government make it clear that that will be the status of the referendum. I am very glad to see the noble Lord,
110
Lord Kirkhill, in his place because I should like to record how extremely helpful he was in 1976 and 1977 when he was Minister of State at the Scottish Office and had to deal on behalf of the Government with the Scotland Act and the subsequent orders dealing with the referendum. He did accept a number of proposals, including some of mine, particularly, as I mentioned earlier, the minimum interval of six weeks. So in those days in opposition our proposals were not always rejected, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggests. We were successful in getting quite a lot of amendments accepted and I would like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, made a great contribution to our debates and he was prepared to accept a number of our proposals. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It is not the intention to press for the word "advisory" to be put into the Bill. Having listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said, I think his anxieties are reflected by what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has already said. At Second Reading, in col. 1113, he said, accurately:
"Parliament will of course remain sovereign. It will be for the Government and, ultimately, Parliament to reflect on the result of the referendums."—[Official Report, 17/6/97; col. 1113.]
"Reflection", I take it, encompasses "advisory" and so there appears to be really nothing between the Committee so far on this.
Lord Kirkhill: I wonder if I might intervene very briefly. I had not intended to do so, but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has mentioned me in his remarks, and they were indeed complimentary remarks, or so I take them to be. Perhaps I may say to the Committee quite quickly that 20 years ago I was faced with a significant phalanx, including the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Earls, Lord Onslow and Lord Lauderdale, and numerous other Peers too many to mention. I was absolutely terrified, and I gave in far too readily, I think.
Lord Renton: The importance of this matter depends very much upon the view that we take of abstentions. Votes on a referendum in which there is merely a vote for or against are different from those votes which take place in a parliamentary election, when there may be at least three parties contesting with each other and a number of candidates involved. Abstentions are therefore of less importance on those occasions, but in a referendum, the essence of which is whether one should vote for or against or not vote at all, the effect of abstaining is exactly the same as voting against. May I give some figures in order to illustrate this? What happened in 1979 bears this out.
Let us suppose that 35 per cent. of the people of Scotland or of Wales vote for a parliament, and supposing 30 per cent. vote against, there would be perhaps another 20 per cent. who might feel that it is not necessary to vote because they are not voting "for". Therefore we would find the position that only 35 per cent. of the people were in favour and 50 per cent. were in

111
fact against but did not all trouble to vote: 30 per cent. did trouble to vote and 20 per cent. abstained. That is a very unsatisfactory way of assuming that the introduction of a new parliament should take place. I hope that the Government will bear this in mind, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has made a very important point. We must consider the effect of abstentions.
Lord Howie of Troon: I sincerely hope that the Committee will not be beguiled by that argument. If an abstention is to be thought of as a vote against, the person who abstains can in fact vote against. It is not difficult to do: he goes along and makes his mark. If on the other hand he abstains he has abdicated, and therefore his opinion is of no account. It should not be considered as a vote against. I notice that my old friend Lord Renton shakes his head: he can shake his head until it falls off but it makes no difference. The man who abstains has abdicated and he has given up his right to be counted, and certainly to be counted as being against. If he is against he can go and put his mark down like the rest of us, who are actually for.
Lord Crickhowell: I should like to follow up that particular point, which is a very important one, although perhaps more important to the electorate than to your Lordships. A firm message has to be delivered to those who do not want the Government's proposals: on this occasion they have to turn out and vote. It is a message that those who are against the proposals of the Government, both for Scotland and Wales, have to deliver loudly and clearly.
I want to make a slightly different point. A White Paper will be put before us in due course. As the Bill is at present drafted, in Wales at any rate there is simply a referendum question about a Welsh assembly. An assembly is a pretty vague sort of organisation. We shall have from the Government in due course some detail of what that assembly is to do, its powers and their limitations, and its duties and functions. But quite clearly a lot more will emerge when the actual Bill setting up the assembly is put in place.
It is important to realise that even if there is a vote in favour of setting up an assembly that should not preclude Parliament from disagreeing about the details subsequently put forward by the Government. I can just see what will happen if the proposal for an assembly is carried. A Bill will be presented to us. We will be told that the Government have the approval of the people and it would be quite improper to disagree with any of the individual clauses or component parts of what is put before the House. We need to nail that one pretty early. It may well be that the Government will get a "Yes" vote for the general proposition that they have put forward, but the Government must understand that while we may well accept—indeed it would be correct to accept—the will of the people on the general proposition, they should not subsequently argue against
112
the right of Parliament to deal very precisely with the detail and to disagree with the individual components if these do not seem to be practicable or sensible.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On the four Scottish questions it will be even more important, it seems to me, for the Government to make it plain to people that this is an advisory referendum. They have already said that it is and they need to make this plain, whether or not that is in the Bill. There may be great difficulty in interpreting what people want from the four different voting choices, as my noble friend Lord Mackay enumerated at the beginning. One could imagine a very difficult decision having to be made when it comes to interpreting where the strength of opinion lies and whether in fact there is a majority for anything, or what there is a majority for. If my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy intends to withdraw the amendment—and from what he said I think he probably does—it is extremely important for the Government to undertake to make it plain again and again that this is an advisory referendum and that people are free to interpret it as they wish. They should do so if that is their intention.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to express my support for my noble friend. In effect, what we have done is to start speaking to Amendment No. 39 which has not been grouped. Any question of something being advisory, be it in the Bill or be it understood in the manner proposed, is terribly important. The way in which the reflection, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is translated into a decision is very much assisted by Amendment No. 39. In due course, when we come to deal with that amendment—I shall not spend time on it now because it speaks for itself—the hope is that consideration will be given to that fact.
Lord Stewartby: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is no longer in the Chamber because I should like to respond to the question he posed during the debate on the previous amendment. It touches on the question of the validity of the referendum and how it should be received, not only by Parliament but also in a sense of how much moral commitment there may be as a result of it.
In moving the amendment, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy put his finger on a very important point; namely, that there is a difference between a referendum held before legislation is brought in and debated and one which is introduced afterwards as a validating mechanism in terms of public opinion. I can only speak for myself—and I do not know whether my noble friends will agree with me—but I would regard the results of any referendum held in advance of legislation as being less valid than one which was held afterwards.
Therefore, I would not necessarily say that I would accept the result of that referendum as being binding in the moral sense. I shall not go into the constitutional issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, although I do not dissent from him in that respect. However, if we say that we pay regard to public

113
opinion and that we accept the validity of a properly conducted test of that opinion, then, even if there were no change to the legislation after it had passed through Parliament and even if that legislation precisely reflected the terms of the White Paper, I do not believe that the effect of a referendum would be the same before and afterwards. I say that because the purpose of the referendum afterwards would be to validate a process which would be much more thorough and which would undoubtedly have been discussed in greater detail, with the implications being much better understood by all those who took part in that debate. Therefore, if the vote is "Yes", I would not regard a referendum held in advance of legislation as being more than an indication that there is support in public opinion for bringing forward the legislation.
Lord Rees-Mogg: I should like to express a certain feeling of sympathy for the Government as regards the amendment. It is perfectly true to say that a referendum can only be an advisory mechanism. Parliament is sovereign, but a referendum is not sovereign in that sense: Parliament will still have the duty to scrutinise the Bill in detail. However, if the amendment is accepted, it seems to me that people will start to suspect that the Government are moving away from accepting the relevance and importance of the referendum.
If the Government do introduce a referendum measure and do in fact hold a referendum, clearly the moral obligation on them will be very great. There seems to me to be a danger that people will start to believe that the Government are resiling from recognising that moral obligation, while in fact they are quite correct to recognise that this referendum can only be an advisory one so far as concerns Parliament as a whole.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, made a very interesting point and one to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred in our first debate; namely, that in our constitutional position referendums cannot bind Parliament. However, if we are to go down the road of referendums—and this is perhaps a rather wider debate than just this particular referendum—we must address ourselves to the question of whether referendums should bind Parliament. Whether or not they bind governments is, of course, another question of, dare I say, lesser importance. Government can feel bound by a referendum but Parliament could still refuse to follow the Government's advice and decide that it was not bound by the referendum decision.
Post-legislative referendums are rather easier to position in the constitutional arrangement because Parliament has decided on a piece of legislation, whatever it may be, and it has then decided to ask the people, "What do you think about this piece of legislation?". My recollection of the 1979 Act was that the relevant clause said, essentially, that if the Scottish people agreed with it, then it would be enacted and carried out; but if they did not agree, then it would not be. The position there was quite clear. If my memory
114
serves me correctly, both Houses of Parliament had debated the issue over two or three years and, quite clearly, had come to a decision, an Act of Parliament had been passed and the question was then put to the people. There is a good argument for saying that, in those circumstances, the results of the referendum really ought to be binding. If we are to travel down the road of having referendums, then, as I said on Second Reading, this is one of the many issues which I believe the Government must address in a single referendum Act so that the rules are clearly set down.
However, pre-legislative referendums are different. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, just said, Parliament has still to consider the detail. Therefore, there seems to me to be a conflict between our concept of parliamentary democracy and of Parliament being sovereign, and the concept of having referendums. But the matter is not resolved when one considers what I understand is becoming Holy Writ in this Chamber; namely, that every time we ask a question of the Government we are referred to the Labour Party manifesto. Therefore, I thought that I would refer to that document. All it tells me is this:
"As soon as possible after the election, we will enact legislation to allow the people of Scotland and Wales to vote in separate referendums on our proposals, which will be set out in white papers. These referendums will take place not later than the autumn of 1997. A simple majority of those voting in each referendum will be the majority required".
We shall return later to some of these issues.
"Popular endorsement will strengthen the legitimacy of our proposals and speed their passage through Parliament".
Although I can read between the lines, the document does not actually tell me that the Government will consider the results to be mandatory. Indeed, they are not necessarily mandatory.
We should perhaps look at the experience of those countries in which referendums or plebiscites are held. I have in mind two in particular. If we consider the position of Switzerland which has very much built its whole constitutional arrangement on referendums, it is clear that there is absolutely no doubt as to the legal position of a referendum held in that country. There are a number of mechanisms to consider, some of which are quite interesting and important from our point of view as regards how other people run referendums. From the details of the first example contained in the booklet that I have with me, it is interesting to note that they relate to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston; namely, that:
"There is nothing to prevent another referendum being requested as soon as one has been held. Many laws have been defeated only to be approved a second time round".
However, the important points are as follows:
"All types of referendum are binding in their outcome. No referendum can be overruled unless by another referendum. The Swiss Supreme Court cannot declare any referendum decision unconstitutional".
I am grateful to my friend Professor Ross Harper who outlined the Swiss position in that booklet. Those are the important aspects of the Swiss constitutional arrangement. It is perfectly clear that whatever a Swiss referendum is about, the result is binding. Everyone in

115
Switzerland who enters a referendum campaign knows the rules of the game; namely, the result of a referendum is enacted.
In the United States of America there is a slightly different arrangement in that there are non-binding referendum ballots. Those Members of the Committee who take even a passing interest in American elections will know that a number of propositions are printed on the ballot paper with which people may agree or disagree. As I understand the position, those can be overruled by the courts, although that may still be a matter of dispute in California. However, the measures are certainly not binding in the states where they are held. I contrast the position in Switzerland, which has rigid, binding rules as regards its referendums, and the United States which does not.
On Second Reading I said that I thought the report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums should be compulsory reading for those Members of the Committee who are taking part in this debate. I certainly found it interesting. The report states that,
"Whether a referendum is regarded as advisory or mandatory is a political issue".
I ask the Government to give me their views on that. The report continues,
"A referendum can be mandatory only to the extent that a Government binds itself to accept the result. That would depend on the referendum issue, and possibly on factors such as the turnout or the size of the majority … Although a Government could commit itself, Parliament could not be bound by the result".
I do not argue with that statement. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, expressed that in his own words, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, earlier this afternoon. However, a problem arises with regard to the political situation in Scotland because the Scottish Constitutional Convention, in which the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were partners, has decided upon the interesting constitutional arrangement that sovereignty resides with the Scottish people. If sovereignty resides with the Scottish people, surely that means that the referendum and any referendum ought to be binding.
The Government may not accept that sovereignty resides with the Scottish people. Some of us recall Mr. Blair's visit to Scotland during the election when he "pooh-poohed" that concept pretty bluntly and said that sovereignty resided with him. To be fair to him, I think that was a slip of the tongue. I believe he was being collective and that he meant to say that sovereignty resided with him as a Member of Parliament together with his fellow Members of Parliament. Perhaps he was being a little slipshod in his language when he said that it resided with him. Perhaps certain Labour Members of Welsh constituencies are beginning to feel that sovereignty resides with him, but that is an aside.
I am not a constitutional expert and I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is to reply to this amendment. I speak in terms of a pupil asking a master for some advice on this matter. There are other noble and learned Lords in the Chamber who know a great deal more about these matters than I do. I may be
116
over-simplifying the matter but if the Scottish Constitutional Convention is correct, and the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have decided that sovereignty rests with the Scottish people, it seems to me they are saying that the results of referendums must be treated as mandatory. That seems to me to conflict with the position held by the Houses of Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will address that matter.
My final point on the matter of advisory or mandatory referendums is the following. If we are to have many referendums in the future, if there is a lowish turnout in a referendum—that is a subject I shall address later— and if the proposition is barely agreed to and the Government decide in their wisdom (and more particularly Parliament decides) that they will not accept the result of the referendum and that they will not enact the result of the referendum, I dare to say that I suspect there will be a considerable backlash against Parliament. I believe people would say, "There they are; they are just ignoring us as usual. They ask our advice but when it does not suit them they just kick it into the long grass and ignore it". It would be a serious matter if we got ourselves into such a position. The position would be helped a little if it were made clear that the result of every referendum was to be advisory and that Parliament would not be bound by it. However, I believe that that would help only a little because, if the people have spoken and Parliament decides to ignore what they have said, that would cause a great deal of trouble and Parliament would be at the receiving end of criticism from the people and particularly from the press.
Those Members of the Committee who have ever sat in another place will know what I am talking about on my next point. Those of us who have had to seek election know that one of the constant questions we are asked is why we do not hold a referendum on the death penalty. I do not wish to discuss the death penalty, but we all know that after horrific events have taken place if a referendum on the death penalty were held there would be a majority in favour of it. Every Member of the Committee who has ever had to argue with a difficult constituent on that matter knows how difficult it is to tell him or her that one has to leave that decision to Members of Parliament. I shall not discuss the Burkean analysis of the duties of Members of Parliament, but that is a difficult argument to put across to people. The position would be made even more difficult if we had asked people their views in a referendum and then decided not to accept the result of that referendum. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will address those important points when he replies to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I hope he will discuss issues wider than the referendums on Scotland and Wales and that he will discuss other referendums that may be held in the future. I hope he will give us an inkling on the Government's thoughts on these issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I am most grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has moved this amendment because he

117
most helpfully said that it was a probing amendment; in other words, that the matter requires clarification. The clarification was readily to hand—not for the first time— from his namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who in my judgment accurately described the constitutional position.
The referendums to be held in Scotland and Wales will indeed he advisory, in the same way as every other referendum in the United Kingdom has been advisory. The well-known principle is that Parliament cannot tie its own hands. I believe that all Members of the Committee who have spoken have made that point. After all, what we do today we can change tomorrow. The Government's position is quite plain and I repeat it. It was made plain by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, on an earlier occasion, as has been mentioned. No referendum Act can require Parliament to do or not to do anything. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, reminded us, the Scotland Act placed a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay an order to repeal the Act if the threshold were not reached in the referendum. However, as a constitutional matter, Parliament could have chosen to reject the order and commence the Scotland Act anyway.
I recognise entirely that the conflict between the general public and both Houses of Parliament could become quite acute in certain situations, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, noted. When the results of the referendums are to hand, it is for Parliament to reflect on them and it is for Parliament to act as it sees fit. It is not necessary—as most Members of the Committee have indicated—to state in the Bill that the referendum in Scotland or in Wales is to be advisory. Under our constitutional arrangements it could be nothing else.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I hope I may speak briefly. This may seem, relatively speaking, to be an unimportant amendment to this Bill. I wholly agree with the noble Lord's classic Diceyan statement as regards the sovereignty of Parliament. What troubles me, however— as my noble friend Lord Mackay indicated— is that in taking forward the development of its ideas the Scottish Constitutional Convention repeatedly referred to the concept of sovereignty resting with the people in Scotland. It expressed that in a way that I do not think Dicey would have done. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is present and he may correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that it derived its authority for that assertion from the famous dictum of Lord President Cooper in the famous case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate in 1953. The issue involved what was to appear on pillar-boxes—whether it was Queen Elizabeth II or simply Queen Elizabeth. I quote from it because we must have a clear understanding in Scotland as to whether or not it is advisory. Otherwise some people may be seriously misled about the real consequences. In Session Cases at page 411, Lord Cooper said:
"The principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution. Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced
118
them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament hut none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done".
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would have some difficulty with much of what is set out in that paragraph. He may care to reflect on it.
I urge the Government to appreciate that there is a school of thought in Scotland that would not accept that a clear majority in a referendum in Scotland would be only advisory in effect. If we are to have a rational, sensible debate in Scotland on the matter, there should he no doubt in people's minds—I do not refer simply to the view that I express or that of the noble Lord—that it is the view of Parliament.
That is important in this respect. If there is to be an inalienable expression of the sovereignty of the Scottish people in a referendum, it would have serious implications when we subsequently discuss a Bill to establish a parliament or assembly. If the outcome were a yes vote, it would he wholly presumptuous and wrong of either House of Parliament to attempt to interfere with that expression of view.
5 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, is leading himself into very deep waters. The Cooper judgment must be taken to have a great deal of force. If we wish to see how much force, we should read carefully the text of the Act of Union of 1707. A large amount of the Act lays out things which the Westminster Parliament may not do. It is hard to reconcile that with the Coke and Blackstone doctrine of sovereignty as we have been used to operating it this side of the Border.
However, in these matters I think that one should accept Aristotle's maxim that it is the mark of the educated man to look for no further certainty in any matter than the nature of the matter will admit. In those circumstances, I think that we may be unwise to pursue this matter any further.
Lord Hughes: I wish to speak on the point as regards whether the matter is advisory or otherwise. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, stated well that Parliament cannot be bound by a referendum. However, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, put his finger on the point. Parliament cannot be bound by a referendum, but a government can be bound by a referendum; and a government with a majority of 179 in the House of Commons is most unlikely to fly in the face of what the people of Scotland have decided in the referendum.
We shall have further debate on this issue on Amendment No. 39. But so much rubbish has been talked about what took place in 1979. A majority was in favour of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed out that it was 33 per cent. to 31 per cent. However, we had the extraordinary position put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is usually so logical, that if 64 per cent. take part in the vote the remaining 36 per cent. must all be assumed to be against the proposals.

119
Let us take the last election in 1992. The Government gained 42 per cent. of the vote. On a 75 per cent. poll, that was 31.5 per cent. of the electorate. But no one in government at that time said that the 25 per cent. who did not vote were against the majority.
I suggest that we may discuss this further on Amendment No. 39. But I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, is right: it can be binding on the Government who put the referendum before the people. As a loyal supporter of the present Government, I shall be most unhappy if at the end of the day they turn down what the people of Scotland have said, whether yes or no.
As regards sovereignty being with the people, that is an old concept. Three hundred years ago Mary was not Queen of Scotland; she was Queen of Scots. Even then the issue was that sovereignty rested with the people. Parliament may have changed that. It does not alter the concept but it alters the way in which it is worked out.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke about the difference between a referendum before the Bill was passed and a referendum after it was passed. He implied that a referendum before the Bill must be advisory, but a referendum after the Bill must be obligatory. Whichever way we want it, we must accept that the position is clear: that it is advisory so far as concerns Parliament. But we must go to the other issue: that a government which have put the referendum before the people must accept that it is mandatory on them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As six noble Lords have strayed on to the point about the turn-out proportion of those eligible to vote, referred to in Amendment No. 39, which is relevant to this amendment, does the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, wish to deal with the issue in outline now or does he wish to defer this important matter until later?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think it proper to deal with the matter in its appropriate place. Although I respectfully agree with the noble Lord that sometimes the debate strays a little, unfortunately I have neither a crook nor sheepdog with me.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy decides what to do, I wonder whether I can tempt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, into addressing one of the questions I put to him, to which perhaps wisely he decided to give a body swerve. I refer to the issue about sovereignty which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. It is important although I do not think that it is of central importance to the position about referendums.
If the Scottish Constitutional Convention, in which his party was the main player, stated clearly—I do not think anyone has denied that it stated clearly—that sovereignty rests with the Scottish people, how does that fit in with the proposition that a referendum cannot bind Parliament? How does it fit in with Mr. Blair's assertion that sovereignty rests with him? Perhaps I can tempt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. If he does not
120
wish to dip his toes into the complexities of Scottish politics, perhaps his noble friend Lord Sewel may wish to give us his advice on this matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am being encouraged into temptation. I cannot swim, and my noble friend Lord Sewel does not wish to.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate.
First, the question of abstentions was raised by my noble friend Lord Renton and by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I have known him for many years in another place and here. He has told us that as he has been resident for some time in England he will not be able to take part in the referendum. I consider that the Scottish people—as they are referred to—would be incomplete without the noble Lord, Lord Howie. So I am sorry that he and others will not be able to take part in the referendum.
I referred to Amendments Nos. 50 and 83, and the general debate on abstentions can be continued under those amendments. If the principles are accepted, the numbers of those who voted for and against will assume greater importance than they did in 1979 and greater importance than any abstentions. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, also referred to the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, said something with which I agree. It is that there is a moral obligation on the Government who put forward a Bill and arranged a referendum. The noble Lord agreed with the whole purpose of my amendment, which is to obtain confirmation by a government spokesman that the referendum is advisory to Parliament.
In the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, had to reply to many points and he did so very adequately, in my opinion. But he did not deal with this matter, which I mentioned in my speech. That was one of the reasons for ensuring that it was raised today.
My noble friend Lord Mackay referred to the 40 per cent. threshold in the Labour Government's Bill of 1978. I have the Act here and can tell him that Section 85(2) required the Secretary of State to repeal the Act if the threshold was not reached.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his reply. He has given a clear statement as I understand it, and it was in order to obtain such a statement that I put down the amendment. It is especially needed because of the possible conflict which has appeared a great deal in the Scottish press and media, but which may not be apparent to all Members of the Committee. It is the conflict between the two concepts: first, the sovereignty of this Parliament and, secondly, that sovereignty in Scotland lies with what is called "the Scottish people". Therefore, this debate and the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have been helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1. line 6, leave out ("in Scotland").
The noble Earl said: I wish to take this amendment with Amendments Nos. 9, 27, 32, 42, 84 and 87. It may not appear clear to everyone why in Amendment No. 3 I propose to:
"leave out ('in Scotland')".
However, it becomes clear when we reach Amendment No. 42, which states that any electoral area should be the whole of the United Kingdom.
I have been rather depressed by the debate, not only by remarks from the Government side but also, I regret to say, from my own Front Bench. One would assume from the arguments that the alteration of the United Kingdom constitution is solely of interest to the Scots and the Welsh. That is not true. When the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, intervened to say: "All Scots say that this must happen", I thought to myself: "How narrow-minded the Scots have become compared with the days of the Edinburgh Enlightenment, of Locke, Hume and Adam Smith". They were outward looking. But no, there is a kind of "whinge fest" going on north of Hadrian's Wall. We English—and I use the word advisedly—consider it is also our United Kingdom. My country goes from the borders of Loch Foyle to Cape Wrath, to Lands End, to the mouth of the Thames and to the edges of Norfolk. That is my country. It is the country of those who live in Aberdeen and those who live in Caerphilly. But for some reason, the majority of the United Kingdom's citizens will not be allowed any say in their constitution. That is sloppy thinking. It also means that when the chickens of this devolution come home to roost and the English wake up, the Scots and the Welsh will be much more unfairly blamed than they are now.
It has been brought to my attention—and I admit that this is the yob end of nationalism—that youths are now going around draped in the cross of St. George saying: "Something the Union Jack". That is a sign of incipient English nationalism and I had hoped that I would never see it, but the Scots and the Welsh—though the Welsh to a lesser extent than the Scots—complain so much. I give an example. I happened to be in Scotland only a month ago, talking to a charming Scots doctor. He said: "Of course we don't have any waiting lists in Scotland because we get 12.5 per cent. more money per patient in Scotland than you do in England". I think no one in the United Kingdom would begrudge differential resources, but if you have cakes to be eaten, differential resources and separate parliaments, as night follows day you will set the Scots against the English.
If we were to have a straightforward referendum—and I shall come to it later—on whether Scotland wishes to be independent, that would be a different matter altogether. If the Scots do not wish to be a member of the club, that is fair enough. But if you want to be a member of the club, the other members—the 87 per cent. of the other members—have a say in what the club's rules are.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that there is a 70 per cent. turn-out in the referendum—not an unfair assumption; let us assume for the sake of argument
122
that 60 per cent. of the 70 per cent. are in favour and 40 per cent. against. That is 42 per cent. of the Scottish electorate or 4.2 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom deciding to ruin the British constitution. It is not a question of "Oh, rubbish!": it is a fact. That is the most depressing aspect; that we English are not allowed any say in what happens. That is why I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Earl Russell: The amendment is superficially plausible. It rests on a considerable series of misapprehensions. The noble Earl illustrated the first of the misapprehensions quite early in his speech when he began by saying, "We English", and said, "I use that word advisedly". Then he said, "My country goes to Cape Wrath". There is a certain tension between the two statements.
The Earl of Onslow: What I also said, advisedly, was that my country means that the person who lives in Aberdeen as a Scot feels, or should feel, towards the United Kingdom what I feel as an Englishman. That is the point I was making. I was not saying that England and Britain are the same thing. They are not.
Earl Russell: I entirely accept that point, to which I was coming. All I said was that there was a certain tension between the points, and that the noble Earl will not deny. There is here a real misunderstanding, especially south of the Border, about Britain. It was illustrated vividly by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, a couple of weeks ago. She said that Britain is a sovereign nation. That was two errors in two words—a peculiarly high strike rate, even for the noble Baroness.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will agree with me that Britain is not a nation. Britain is a union of several nations. I shall not particularise the number because I do not intend to debate Northern Ireland. Wales is clearly a nation; Scotland is clearly a nation. They have been independent nations; they are united by different processes. That is one of the aspects that puts the basic tension into the subject.
Britain is not only not a nation; it is not in fact in the Diceyan sense, a sovereign country. If one looks carefully at the Act of Union 1707—I re-read that Act with care only last week—one sees that it is not an incorporating union. It does not set up a single sovereign state. Above all, it does not set up a uniform system of law. That is one of the most important facts about the Act of Union with Scotland.
The union with Wales was based on conquest, but the union with Scotland was a union with a separate and equal sovereign state under a common authority. From the very beginning, the English always had very great difficulty absorbing that that was the case. Right back, immediately after the Union of 1603, Sir John Stanhope, Vice-Chamberlain of England, discovered to his utter horror that the king also had a vice-chamberlain of Scotland. He was so shocked and insulted by that information, that he refused to come to court for a period of six months.

123
That belief that there is a single sovereign nation is the basis of a great deal of the misunderstanding about the Union. If the Scots whinge, as the noble Earl put it, it is because they say that the type of union which has hitherto existed is not the type of union which the English believe it to be and that the English have in fact simply failed to recognise that there is a union of sovereign states on the basis of equality.
I passionately hope that the Union will continue. South of the Border we have learned a very great deal from it and I hope that we shall continue to do so. But it will not continue unless it is recognised that it is a union of equals and a union of sovereign states, each with its own dignity, rights, laws and pre-eminences.
I agree with the noble Earl that we can only have a union if it rests on a basis of consent. That is where there is a superficial plausibility about asking the English to vote in a referendum. But it appears to me to be clear that in both Wales and Scotland there is no consent to the existing system. So, were the English to vote for the existing system, they would be voting for something which, in effect, could only be imposed by a power of conquest exercised from Westminster. That is something to which I for one am not prepared to give my support, except in the event—which I do not expect, but anything can happen—that the people of Wales and Scotland should vote for it in a referendum. Should they vote for the status quo, then it would be an option.
But it is a convention that, when issues are put to the people in the clearest possible terms in a general election, we accept the result. In particular, it is a convention that we in this Chamber accept the result. So it is my belief that, were England to vote on the referendum, we could not put the status quo as an option in favour of the English. I could not be a party to that.
If, after the Scots and the Welsh have voted for devolution, the English were to find it absolutely unbearable to accept that they are not the only pebbles on the beach; that they do not exist in a national sovereign state but, like practically every other state in Europe, they exist in a system of power sharing, where sovereignty is distributed in several parts and several places, then it would be their right to say so. But it would amount to saying, "Stop the world, I want to get off". I hope that they do not do it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may say a few words about this matter, following the noble Earl. Debating historical and constitutional matters with the noble Earl makes a change. Normally, in our usual debates, he tells a few anecdotes from times long gone by and then discusses social security issues on the back of those anecdotes. Today, however, we hear him speak with almost no anecdotes, discussing something on which I know he is a great expert. I had hoped that he would address himself to the question I put to the Minister; namely, where does sovereignty lie? Does it lie with the people as the Scottish Constitutional Convention chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and now chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, or does it lie with Parliament?
124
I know that it is fairly easy to tempt the noble Earl to discuss these matters and perhaps I can tempt him at a later stage to give us an answer on that point. The Government seem to have entirely failed to do so. Certainly, when I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite, I always tried—no matter how inadequate it might have been—to answer questions put by those on the opposite side. If Ministers speak with their noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, they will find that, although she sometimes did not like my answers, she certainly knew that she had received answers.
My noble friend Lord Onslow made an important point; namely, there will be knock-on effects of Scottish and Welsh assemblies or parliaments (if we come to it) on the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the way in which we run the United Kingdom. Undoubtedly, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has confirmed that. Questions will arise about what Scottish Members do down the corridor at Westminster if they no longer have a say over similar matters affecting their own constituencies—the so-called West Lothian question. There may well be other financial matters which will have to be addressed. There will be important matters raised and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will already appreciate that there will be important matters about the position of the Scottish Ministers—in other words, Scottish parliament Ministers—on fisheries and agriculture when it comes to the United Kingdom being represented at Brussels by United Kingdom Ministers for fisheries and agriculture.
At Second Reading I attempted to say, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is gracious enough to accept, that we should leave these matters until we come to a Bill, if we do come to a Bill. Then we must address in some detail how the new arrangements fit in. This is a referendum and the matter ought to be decided by the Scots and the Welsh; or perhaps, more particularly, by those people of whatever ethnicity who are living in Scotland or Wales at this particular time.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, seems to believe that I concede his case. I am not doing so. I am saying that that is what he says should happen—that is the answer that he gave. I shall return to amendments—indeed, I was about to come to them—about Scots who live in England at this moment and whether or not they should vote; or about Scottish soldiers who are based in England and whether or not they should vote. There is no doubt that my noble friend's amendments would get round those two problems. But I believe that he was wrong in his assertion that the English should be given a vote in this referendum. This is a matter for the Scots and the Welsh primarily, although, if they both agree to have such an assembly, then we and the other place down the corridor will have to address very seriously the question of how the assemblies/parliaments link in with what I, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, trust will be the continuing United Kingdom.
Having had a debate on this issue, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is one of the finest debaters in this Chamber. With very good humour, he attempts to tempt people into rash

125
statements by way of answers to the direct questions that he asks. He has tempted me. I shall now give a wrong answer to his question. The tempting question was: How does one match the Scottish Constitutional Convention's idea of sovereignty which vests in the Scottish people with the idea of our Parliament being sovereign?
I am sure, in my misguided view, that there is a simple answer. If any Scottish assembly or parliament which may be created as a result of our deliberations and the passing of this Bill decided to hold a referendum, I have no doubt that what is in the Scottish convention would apply. This is a Bill which one assumes will be passed by the United Kingdom Parliament and it is that Parliament and that law which has jurisdiction. The result is that, as our law constitutionally says, Parliament is sovereign and therefore the result of the referendum will be advisory. That is clear to me. But I repeat: if anything is clear to me, as my clients know, it must be wrong.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I repudiate the suggestion that the constitutional debate in Wales and Scotland— Scotland in particular—which is serious and well informed, can be categorised as a whinge fest. Significant areas of opinion in both Scotland and Wales want an alteration of the arrangements which have substantially been in effect and have led to the over-centralisation, the over-concentration of state power in Westminster. That is not a whinge fest; it is an intelligent approach to modern constitutional arrangements.
The key criterion for deciding who should vote on our proposals for establishing a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly ought to be residency in the countries concerned. I was grateful for the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to the position for which we contend. It should be the residents of those countries who vote in the referendum; they are the most directly affected by devolution.
Perhaps I may offer an example. I believe myself to be Welsh. I was brought up in a Welsh-speaking household. I no longer live in Wales, as a matter of choice. As a matter of free choice, I am registered to vote in local elections in Gloucestershire. I see a number of my noble friends on the other side who come from west Wales and also mid-Wales—my noble friend Lord Hooson—and also north Wales, which I understand has some intimate connection with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. They may well be entitled to vote in local elections. If so, they ought to be entitled to vote in a referendum.
We are proposing that those entitled to vote in local elections in Scotland and Wales should be entitled to vote in the referendums. That includes Peers, which I am sure must be a determining factor, and EU citizens resident in Scotland or Wales. It would exclude overseas electors, who are entitled to vote only in parliamentary elections.
That was a principle recognised by Parliament in respect of the 1979 referendums in Scotland and Wales. Much more recently, when the present Opposition was
126
then in government, under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 exactly the same principle was adopted; that is, the franchise was extended to the people of Northern Ireland and not the whole of the United Kingdom. We believed then that that was the right decision and propose the same decision on the present occasion.
It is not correct to say that people in other parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland and Wales will have no voice. That is quite wrong. The final decisions on the principle and the detail of setting up a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly reside with this Parliament. It is this Parliament which will make those ultimate decisions, as was plainly established in the interesting debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
We have put forward a balance between consulting directly with those in Scotland and Wales and, at the same time, ensuring that the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole are properly taken into account in both Houses of this Parliament. I therefore invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Of course I shall withdraw the amendment. I just wanted to bring attention, as harshly as I could, to a fact which I believe passionately to be true; that is, that just over 10 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom have the right to vote to change the constitution of the other 87 per cent. If they vote for it and it is carried out, Cassandra will be proved right. It will be a tragedy for the United Kingdom.
If I can understand that, other people ought to be able to. The consent of our Parliament has been based on the consent of everyone in the United Kingdom working to the same rules. It is extremely depressing to think that the things that I foresee will come about. With that gloomy thought, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("establishment") and insert ("re-establishment").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 4, 55 and several others included in the grouping is to set the Scottish dimension of the referendums Bill and the schedule in its correct context. The amendments are straightforward and the substantive change is no more than to add the two letters "re" hyphenated on to the front of the words "establish" and "establishment". The Bill would therefore refer to the "re-establishment" of a Scottish parliament.
Of the fact that a Scottish parliament existed before May 1707 there can be no doubt. The amendment was trailered by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, as being trivial. It is not trivial that there was a Parliament in Scotland before May 1707. The minutes of that Parliament are available in the Library and give us a valuable insight into its workings. For example, those concerned today with the exclusion of a class of Members of this Chamber and seeking for a

127
precedent need only look at the Scottish Act abolishing the Prelacie dated 22nd July 1689, and thus excluding bishops from the Parliament. That example is not offered as a presbyterian's revenge and I must declare the interest of being an elder of the Kirk.
While I accept that the teaching of Scottish history may have been sidelined until recently—disgracefully, if I may say so—I am unable to accept that the pre-Union Scottish Parliament has never been heard of. It may not necessarily have been the most wonderful example of a Parliament, but it is very much part of Scotland's heritage and an historic symbol of Scotland's continuing sovereignty, as much so as the excellently displayed Honours of Scotland. And, further to that, Edinburgh still enjoys Parliament Square and Parliament House alongside the Royal Mile.
The heroic defence of Scotland's independence and criticism of the incorporated Union by Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun took place in that Scottish Parliament. Fletcher's pamphlet about the effect of Article 22 of the treaty sums up why we are here today involved in legislation to improve the Union. He wrote,
"The Scots deserve no pity, if they voluntarily surrender their united and separate interests to the Mercy of an united parliament, where the English have so vast a majority … it is much easier to corrupt 45 Scots in London, than it is to corrupt 300 at Edinburgh; and besides, there will be no occasion of corrupting them, when the Case shall occur of a difference betwixt the South-Britons and the North-Britons; for the Northern will be out-voted, without being corrupted … This will be the issue of that darling Plea, of being one and not two; it will be turned upon the Scots with a Vengeance; and their 45 Scots Members may dance around to all Eternity, in a trap of their own making".
The complaint about sleaze may not be as serious as it sounds. In an unpaid parliament, "management" was then the accepted way of securing consent. The Earl of Mar's remark that,
"Contrair to our expectations, the treaty has cairied",
sums up the success he had, as Principal Secretary, in managing the vote during the ratification of the treaty. It is worth noting the disillusion with which the incorporating Union was received, even by the Principal Secretary, who was promoting the treaty. The Earl of Mar wrote to William Carstares, on 9th March 1706, thus:
"You see that what we are to treat of, is not in our choice, and that we see the inconvenience of treating an incorporating union, only".
Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that I have withdrawn amendments which called for the alteration of "a" to "the" before the words "Scottish Parliament". I did this because I realised that such amendments might cause confusion. They might imply that it is the pre-Union Parliament that is being re-established. Of course, the Parliament being proposed for re-establishment will have very different characteristics from its predecessor.
With regard to my claim at Second Reading that the Parliament of Scotland stands adjourned, it may be that I have misled the House and myself. If that is the case, then I apologise profusely. The minutes of the Parliament of Scotland contain no entries beyond the adjournment on 25th March. The House was adjourned until 22nd April, but it never sat on that date. The form
128
of adjournment was the same as the last day of previous Parliaments. An adviser friend put this to an historian acquaintance, curiously in America. The answer came back that the Parliament of Scotland was dissolved by proclamation on 28th April 1707. Ironically, the source quoted was the Mar and Kellie Papers in the National Library of Scotland.
A visit to there produced two documents that can help us. On 21st April Lord Mar records:
"This day the council met and adjourned the Parliament to the 29 Apryle".
On 28th April, curiously written down as 1706 when he meant 1707—this has no doubt confused historians—Lord Mar recorded this:
"Yesterday the Parliament was dissolved, and this day, the council and Exchequer sale and her Majesty's letters being read, there were two proclamations published accordingly".
I do not understand why this proclamation was not recorded in the minutes. The minutes were printed and bound in 1824. The Union was in full swing by then, and I cannot see why this proclamation should have been suppressed. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the historical purpose behind my friendly amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, kindly wrote to me to explain the logicality of his amendments. As he indicated, the Parliament of Scotland was apparently adjourned in 1707. That seems to be the situation still. It stands adjourned. He has suggested that, with the new parliament that is proposed, there could be two parliaments operating in Scotland at the same time. I hope that the Minister, reinforced by legal interpretations, will be able to tell us what the situation is.
Whether "re-establishing"—the wording in these amendments—is the correct solution I do not know. It might increase the confusion. Although the Scottish Parliament of 1707 was fairly democratic compared with other parliaments at that time, to revive it now would not be a move towards further or greater democratic governance. I would remind the Committee that it consisted of the three estates; the peers, the landowners and the burgesses, who were broadly town dwellers. Those who attended were usually chosen or regarded as representatives and most of the work was done by a central committee. At least one distinguished ancestor of the noble Earl participated and I am glad to see in his place my noble friend Lord Belhaven, whose ancestor was also a leading member of the 1707 Parliament and, incidentally, was one of the leaders opposed to the union.
I fully understand from an historical point of view the reasons at that time for some supporting the Union and others opposing it. But there are some nationalists in Scotland—I refer to the SNP and others: this is not a matter concerning the Liberal Democrats—who call for that Parliament of 1707 to be resumed on the basis that it is still there and should be brought back. I hope that the Minister can, with legal interpretation, settle this matter of the adjournment once and for all.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am totally foxed by this amendment. Either the Scottish Parliament exists or it does not exist. If it does not exist, what is the object of the amendment? If it does exist, the only way constitutionally that the parliament can be dissolved is by a Royal Proclamation. The noble Earl said—I accept with much interest everything he said—that it was dissolved. Well, then, it does not exist. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said that it stands adjourned. That is quite different from being dissolved. If the noble Earl says that it was dissolved, it was dissolved. In any event, if it was not dissolved and still exists, it is a matter for the Queen and a Royal Proclamation. This amendment appears to me—I say this with the utmost respect—to be wholly misconceived.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Earl has told us with, I think, fairly good historical authority, that the Parliament was dissolved. For that reason alone I would entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in what he has just said. But there is another reason why I would be very sorry to see the word "re-establishment" occur in the Bill. That is because, as I understand it, not having seen the White Paper in a dream or anything like that, the parliament that is on offer from the present Government is quite different from the old Scots Parliament. The old Scots Parliament made all the laws concerning Scotland. There was no area which was not its province. What is on offer now is a parliament which would not have any control over the making of laws concerning foreign affairs, defence, fiscal matters or, we are told, social security and possibly other areas. It would therefore be very misleading to put the word "re-established" into the Bill. I might just add that my ancestor was a prominent member of that old Parliament and he, too, was against the union.
Lord Rees-Mogg: As the only Member of the Committee who seems not to be descended from one of the Peers of the Scottish Parliament, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on an amendment of the utmost importance, even if that requires that I should clash with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, who has been so helpful to us in the debate. It seems to me that that goes to the heart of the matter. The old Scottish Parliament was a Parliament. It was an independent Parliament of an independent nation. It had no natural limitation on its powers except in so far as there were powers reserved to the Crown or to the Scottish legal system.
The proposed parliament—which, like the proposal for Wales, might be called an assembly—will not be a sovereign parliament as I understand it—that is to say, it will be a subordinate body of the United Kingdom Parliament with certain powers devolved to it.
If we were to accept this amendment, it seems to me that we would be implying that the parliament that was contemplated had either the power or potentially could acquire power, similar to that of the original Scottish Parliament. We would be going back to a full,
130
independent parliament which, when matters came to a head, would have the right to contradict the Parliament at Westminster.
But my understanding is that that is not to be the situation of the proposed Scottish parliament; that it is to be given certain functions, with perhaps certain taxing powers as well, but all the other functions of the parliament are to be retained in Westminster. Ultimately, I suppose, what Westminster has given to the Scottish parliament by statute could in theory be redeemed by a subsequent Westminster Parliament. It seems to me that this amendment has to be rejected because we would be doing something quite different from what is proposed by the Government. Nevertheless, it points to the very question which we have been discussing in terms of sovereignty, which is the central question; namely, what sort of parliament is proposed?
Lord Howie of Troon: Like the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, my forebears played no part in the Treaty of Union. They had no vote and nor did anyone think of giving them one. I suppose some of us have got one now.
I do not know whether the Parliament was adjourned or dissolved, but for the sake of this debate I am prepared to assume that it was adjourned, although there is some contradictory evidence in the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who introduced the debate.
Two things strike me and the first is this: if the Parliament is adjourned and this new parliament is established, it can remain adjourned. The problem then resolves itself and disappears. It will remain adjourned for all eternity. However, if the Parliament is adjourned and then re-established, there is the possibility of having two parliaments in Scotland. I can see that as a confusing situation, but it resolves one difficulty which I have in my understanding of the Government's proposals for the new Scottish parliament. Although the White Paper is not before us as yet, as I understand it the new parliament is to be uni-cameral. I do not really care for that.
If we have two parliaments, we shall resolve that difficulty and the re-established Scottish Parliament would then become the equivalent of the House of Lords. It would take up the revising duties which we carry out for the United Kingdom and which it appears we shall be denied doing for Scotland in due course. I incline towards the view of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, said, put his finger on a very significant and important constitutional point.
Lord Hughes: I am sorry that I cannot follow my noble friend in the way he regards the possibility of re-establishing the Parliament. Instead I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, wrote to me, as he did to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointing out that his amendment was not intended to be in any way against the establishment of a Scottish parliament, which the

131
Bill aims to set up. My interpretation is that, if the Scottish Parliament is re-established, the noble Earl is giving the SNP its case in one amendment because the Parliament which existed then, as has been pointed out, had sole power. It was an independent Parliament and the English had nothing to do with it. So if it is re-established, the SNP will be inviting the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, to become the president.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: I am a bit puzzled by this amendment. Who is going to sit in this adjourned Parliament? As far as I can see, it will be a parliament of ghosts. Who is going to start it off? Is there anyone still alive who was alive in 1707? I do not believe that there is.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: They might be dead, but their heirs are alive. The noble Lord is one of them.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It would be an impertinence to follow the noble Earl into Scottish history. It would be all the more impertinent to do so in the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In addition, I do not feel confident to discuss the constitutional position. I deprecate this amendment because it will only lead to confusion.
I shall be moving an amendment shortly, so perhaps I may say where I stand in general on this Bill. I am generally in favour of devolution because it assists in moving decision-making nearer to the people who are affected. I well understand the opposition view based on the slippery slope and the thin end of a wedge argument. A very perceptive political thinker, Hugh Cecil, who I believe was a great uncle of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, once said that the British constitution is full of the thin ends of wedges, which the good sense of the community refrained from driving home. But the trouble here is that we cannot rely on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned the Scottish National Party. It wants to drive home that wedge and it is a very real danger. For my part, I believe that the danger of not accepting the Bill, which I hope can be improved, is greater than the danger which I have just mentioned. My noble friend Lady Saltoun mentioned the fact that the Scottish Parliament was sovereign, subject to the doctrine of sovereignty lying in the hands of the people. At any rate, it had all-embracing jurisdiction. It had jurisdiction over defence and foreign affairs. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has left the Chamber so he need not be inflamed. As I read Anglo-Scottish history, foreign policy had a distinctly Anglophobe colour. If we use the word "re-establish", it will be perceived that we are recommending to the voters the establishment of a parliament with similar powers to that which existed before the Act of Union. But that is not the intention at all. As I understand it, the intention is that there is a comparatively limited jurisdiction to be conferred on the Scottish parliament. In general, it is to be such functions as at present are devolved on the Secretary of State for Scotland and specifically Scottish matters like Scottish law and,
132
I suppose, perhaps, the Scottish Church. Therefore, if we accept the amendment we are inviting the driving home of a wedge, and a very dangerous wedge.
Another matter adverted to was that before 1707, the Scottish Parliament was bicameral. It had a House of Peers. We do not know because we have not been told— and it is one of the many things that we have not been told—
6 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give way. The Scottish Parliament was unicameral and there were the three estates who sat in it. Those were the Peers, the burgesses and the clergy— the Church. But it was unicameral.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that my noble friend will acquit me of discourtesy but I am afraid that I do not hear interventions. In fact, I have considered whether I am justified at all in addressing Members of the Committee in debate when I do not do so.
Perhaps I may try to continue the point. It may be understood and it may be argued that we are reviving a bicameral Scottish parliament. I doubt very much whether that is the intention of the Government, although they have asserted repeatedly the value to the constitution of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, mentioned that on Second Reading in most generous terms.
Therefore, it seems to me that these amendments can lead only to misunderstanding and potentially dangerous misunderstanding. I hope that the noble Earl will not press them.
Lord Mishcon: I have a short declaration to make which is that no ancestor of mine was a member of the Parliament that existed in Scotland prior to 1707. But I have every reason to believe that that Parliament had a very great respect for the Ten Commandments.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am tempted to temper the description of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish when he said that the amendment was trivial because it has raised issues which I hope the Minister will address. There is some confusion as to the exact status of this parliament. A number of different solutions have been put forward by the noble Earl and by other Members of the Committee. It would help if the Minister could lay some of those ghosts to rest.
However, my noble friend's allegation that the amendment is trivial does bear thinking about in that it is the only amendment which the Liberal Democrats have tabled for discussion in Committee.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: This is an individual amendment tabled by the noble Earl.
The Earl of Lindsay: I hope that the Liberal Democrat Party has some sort of collective unity which enables it to take a position on the Bill. What has surprised some Members of the Committee is that the Liberal Democrat Party, which played a crucial role in

133
the constitution convention and which argued very strongly in another place in relation to the issues on which this Bill departs from the conclusions of that convention and took its amendment to the vote, has chosen not to pursue any of those substantial points of difference which have been identified during the passage of the Bill here.
In his substantial Second Reading speech, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, did flag up the point which the honourable Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross pursued in the other place.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The view is taken on these Benches that the sooner this Act is passed the better. Let the people of Scotland and Wales decide without all this shilly-shallying which we are hearing from the Conservative Benches.
The Earl of Lindsay: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will agree that we are beholden to, and, indeed, have been requested by, people outside this Chamber to make sure that the Bill receives full parliamentary scrutiny for the sake of both those who support devolution for Scotland and Wales and those who oppose it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Liberal Democrats want to see what sort of proposals come forward from the Government for the creation of a parliament for Scotland and an assembly for Wales. When those proposals come forward, as we hope they will, then we shall have a full debate on the particular type of devolution which we require.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having taken part in this debate, and shortly, I hope, I object to being accused of shilly-shallying. I regard that as an offensive, gratuitous and singularly unpleasant remark. Will the noble Lord understand—he has not been here all this time—that we have a duty to do and we are doing our best to do it?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: There is nothing personal in the expression that I used and if I have caused the noble Lord offence, then of course I withdraw it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Thank you, accepted.
The Earl of Lindsay: Perhaps I may make one point about the amendment which was covered largely by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, helpfully circulated a letter to Members of this House who took part in the Second Reading debate to explain, first, that his amendment does not seek to bring any harm to the Bill, but secondly, that there is a danger that we may have two parliaments in Scotland.
In some respects, whatever happens to this amendment, should devolution be voted for and delivered, there will be an element of two parliaments operating in Scotland. Every Scot, wherever he or she lives, will have two parliamentary MPs representing him
134
or her. One will sit in Scotland dealing with those affairs which are dealt with in Scotland. Another representative will sit in Westminster dealing with those affairs which are dealt with in Westminster. There will be an inevitable confusion, on which the White Paper may or may not throw light, as to those affairs which are partly dealt with in Scotland and partly dealt with in Westminster.
The more important point about the danger of having two parliaments in Scotland is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. He quite correctly was reminded of the fact that the proposals being put forward by the Government are for unicameral government in Scotland. Uniquely in the United Kingdom, the Scots are to have a parliament devolved to them which is capable of creating primary legislation but which will not have any ability to revise that primary legislation. There will be no counterbalance so that a second look can be taken at any suspected excesses achieved by that single chamber.
Perhaps the Minister will pass on a request to those completing the White Paper. During the debates on the Queen's Speech my noble friend Lady Blatch referred to bicamerality and unicamerality. In a letter succeeding that debate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, said that the Government intended that the Scottish parliament would be a modern and effective parliament with built-in procedures and opportunities for the scrutiny and revision of legislation and its business. Given that much of the parliamentary legislation that affects all Scots will now be changed from a bicameral to a unicameral democratic system it would be useful if the noble Lord could explain, either today or in the White Paper, exactly what built-in procedures the Edinburgh parliament will have in order to replace the role that is now provided by the second Chamber in Westminster.
I return to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. As later stages of the Bill are pending it would be useful if the various questions and uncertainties that have been raised by this amendment were properly put to bed by the Minister.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I greatly enjoy the privileges of this House. One of them is the relaxed atmosphere in which debates are conducted. We do not have a Speaker in this House. That imposes on its Members a certain degree of self-discipline. The subject before the Committee today is the question whether or not a referendum should be held. We have had long debate in the course of these proceedings on what kind of parliament there should be, whether it should be a unicameral parliament, and so on. That issue will arise from our deliberations and debates on the White Paper and on the amendment. I appeal to noble Lords to consider in their interventions whether they are discussing the issue of a referendum. That is the issue before us. While I enjoy the historical references to our ancient parliament, I believe that we should try as Members of this House to discipline ourselves into discussing the matter before the House.
Lord Sewel: Phew! I have long since discarded the speaking note that was prepared for this particular

135
amendment. There were times during the debate when I considered that if I had not been here I would not have believed it. It is one of those wonderful occasions when there have been truly cameo performances in your Lordships' House by all concerned. I believe that that is very much valued.
I am in a state of utter and total confusion. Even towards the end of the debate I believed that we were talking about whether or not to insert "re" before "establish". Instead, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, went on at great length about unicameral parliaments. The relevance of unicameral parliaments to the insertion of "re" before "establish" totally escapes me, but I am sure that it is a valid point.
My other source of confusion is the following. Before the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, rose to speak I was absolutely convinced that the previous parliament stood adjourned and that was why it was sought to re-establish it. The noble Earl immediately said that it had been dissolved. How one re-establishes a body that has been dissolved I do not know. I do not know whether I am on sure and uncontested historical ground by pointing out that there are no members of that parliament. Those who were members are dead. I may be chancing my arm in the context of some of the contributions to the debate. I look forward to any interventions.
The serious point—virtually all of the contributions come down to this—is that whether we like it or not the kind of parliament proposed in the White Paper—this Bill sets up the referendum—will be fundamentally different in both powers and composition from the parliament that existed prior to 1707, whether that parliament stands dissolved or adjourned. Because of that fundamental difference there is no sensible way in which the new parliament can re-establish the old. That is not a matter of practical reality.
I hope that the noble Earl will not take it amiss if I point out that the more I conducted my personal researches into the parliament of 1707 before coming to the Dispatch Box the more I was persuaded that the workings of the former Scottish Parliament were not a model that we should try to emulate. Certainly, they are not a model of rectitude for the way in which we hope to see Scottish parliamentary business carried out in future.
I have a solution to the problem, which I admit is crude and borne of sheer pragmatism. I propose that we bury the 1707 parliament, adjourned or dissolved, in the shroud of historical obscurity, let it rest and get on with the establishment of a new parliament.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: On 9th January 1707, at the end of a bitter debate about the ratification of Article 22, which does concern us, the Duke of Atholl—no relation—summed up the constitutional position thus:
" … it is plain and evident, that, from this, a sovereign Independent Monarchie shall dissolve its constitution, and be at the disposal of England, whose Constitution is not, in the least, to be altered by this Treaty".
136
This is what we are talking about. It is hoped now slightly to reverse that position. The aim of the referendum is the re-establishment of a parliament in Scotland with, admittedly, limited sovereignty.
One must bear in mind that in the past two general elections 22 per cent. of the population voted with the Scottish Nationalist Party. That suggests to me that the Scottish people are very unhappy with the status quo—so unhappy that, rather than modify it, they would rather leave the United Kingdom. However, I believe that the United Kingdom is capable of modification.
I should like to say one word about unicamerality. I believe that if one pursued the Constitutional Convention's blueprint of pre-legislative committees which would consider legislation at the White Paper stage, not merely when it arrived in the form of a Bill, the bicameral function of this House in scrutinising legislation that had barely been looked at by the other end of the building could be incorporated into a unicameral function.
As to the question of dissolution, I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would produce details of the proclamation. So far the only details available to us on whether or not the parliament was dissolved are those provided by the jottings of the Earl of Mar.
Lord Sewel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the authority of the jottings of the noble Earl's predecessor.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the Minister for his kind acceptance of that point. I shall of course withdraw the amendment. The Parliament of 1707 by now has gone, like yesterday. I did not wish to reproduce a parliament made up of lairds, burgesses, on occasion, bishops, and Peers, although I suppose that the hereditary peerage—I think that my noble kinswoman Lady Saltoun of Abernethy was intending to contribute on this aspect— would produce some members of a re-created parliament of 1707. I do not want that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 4A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 5.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 4A:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("and tax-varying powers").
The noble and learned Lord said: It falls to me to move the first of a series of amendments to be spoken to in conjunction with it referring to the taxing capacity of a proposed Scottish parliament, and, generally, to finance. I tabled the amendment as an alternative to one already proposed and also to the wording in the Bill. With reference to the Deputy Chairman's observation, I do not intend to ask the Committee to divide on the amendment or the subsequent amendments in my name.
My objection to the Government's phraseology is that it is much too vague. On the previous amendment I drew attention to the fact that there is a joker in the pack—a body of persons who are willing to drive home the Bill, while willing to see the slide down the scale, and to exploit any vagueness.
I have a feeling—I hope that it is not due merely to the unpleasing cynicism that comes with years, both calendar and parliamentary—that we are having the second question about varying taxation because Mr. Blair got into trouble when he made his foray into Scotland. The term "varying taxation" can mean anything or nothing. Taxation includes VAT and Customs and Excise as well as income tax. Income tax itself contains a great many matters. The prime duty of Parliament is to put perfectly clear and understandable propositions to those who are invited to vote.
Amendment No. 4A leaves out the phrase, "and tax-varying powers", and Amendment No. 8A adds the words:
"with limited power to raise or lower basic rates of income tax".
I think that that is what is proposed for the Scottish parliament. I am reinforced in that view as I think that it was in the mind of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, although, again, I speak in deference to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and the noble Lords, Lord Ewing and Lord Steel. I tabled the amendment in preference to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and my noble friend Lady Saltoun, which merely inserts the word "income" before the word "tax". That is an improvement but it does not go far enough. Income tax covers, for example, allowances and tax avoidance. I believe that it would be disastrous to have a different Customs regime north of the Border. It can only cause confusion if we have marginal matters of income tax, tax avoidance, tax allowances, and so on, differently dealt with.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Perth relates to the power to raise or lower taxes. It is many years since I first met my noble friend Lord Perth. He was brought in with another eminent Scot to give counsel to the Treasury on a matter where there was a distinct difference of departmental opinion. Ever since then I have held him in the highest respect, but I do not think it is going far enough merely to say "raise or lower taxes" because that would certainly include VAT, and probably also Customs and Excise. I tabled my amendment in the hope of hearing the Committee's opinion on these various matters. We do not know very much about what is in the Government's mind in general with regard to the handling of tax. That is why we have all along been in difficulties. Until we know what is in the Government's mind, we do not know what question to be put to the electorate. We have at best to wait for the White Paper.
I have to ask a question arising out of an answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, to searching questions about the finance and tax provisions under Scottish devolution. He said:
"My Lords, if the Scottish parliament were to vary the tax rate downwards, Westminster would lose a possible £450 million of revenue but could adjust that from Scotland's block grant".—[Official Report, 18/6/97; col. 1236.]
138
In other words, Scotland would be no better off for lowering taxation. I should like to know in particular how it would work with the raising of taxation. With the great Scottish tradition of education, and with the strong influence of the Liberal Democrats, they might well want to raise taxation specifically to pay for improved education.
Let us suppose that income tax were raised 3p. What effect would that have on the block grant? I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on that and deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. He did not answer the question but he read his brief, which was very illuminating. It referred back to the effect of raising taxation by 3p in the pound. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is in the Government's mind. If he does, we shall be in a much better position to know what system ought to be adopted.
The subsequent amendments standing in my name are consequential on the two to which I have spoken. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My amendments are grouped with that moved by the noble and learned Lord, but I am not sure whether it is in order for me to speak to them as part of the whole story or separately. In any event, I shall work on the assumption that I should speak to my amendments now.
It is always an honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I agree that the words used in the schedule are too vague. It is of first importance that the questions, which appear in the schedule, are totally clear and unambiguous. The first part of the schedule is clear and states:
"I agree that there should be a Scottish parliament".
I have more difficulty with the second part. What is meant by:
"should have tax-varying powers"?
That is a confusing expression and I have tried in my amendments to make it clear what we are being asked to do in voting on that second part. That is why I propose the words "to raise or lower taxes", without in any way trying to suggest what should be part of the White Paper. Until we know what is in the White Paper we should not try to debate it. The form that I propose would make it easier for those for or against taxing to argue their case. The position would be much clearer to the voters, who must reach a decision. In Committee it is not appropriate to argue whether we have limited powers or whatever. That will come later after the publication of the White Paper. However, it is clear that we must get the question right.
I recently spoke with a number of my friends about the whole issue. They told me that I was right to support the first part of the schedule—whether or not we should have a Scottish parliament, although I must confess that I prefer the word "assembly"—but that the second part does not matter too much at this stage because we know that a Scottish parliament will not deal with taxation until later. There are so many other issues to be dealt with; namely, the exact relationship between the Scottish and English parliaments. As regards the issue

139
of taxing, it is argued that the tax will be limited. That is like the argument, "Oh, but the baby is only a little baby". That answer is not good enough. If the second question is not correctly phrased at the start we might raise the whole issue of the Union. I said much about that in my speech on Second Reading and my position is well known. I believe that we must make the wording of the question as clear as possible.
I hope that the Government will accept my amendments in the spirit in which I move them. I am not against the proposals; I am trying to help. I am trying to clarify what is meant by them. I find the words "tax-varying powers" unclear. Indeed, they are fudging the issue, which is the last thing we should do when putting questions to the voters. I hope that my amendment, which tries to clarify the situation, is acceptable to the Government. If I am allowed to do so, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: With respect to the noble Earl, he cannot move the amendment now. The Committee can deal only with one at a time.
Lord Campbell of Croy: We have heard amendments that have been tabled and addressed by two experienced Cross-Benchers in your Lordships' House. I refer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The matter they have raised is relevant to our examination of the Bill today.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, intervened to make a comment with which I entirely agree; that we ought to be concentrating on the terms of the Bill and not dealing with general questions of devolution. However, a tax-varying power is something quite new and the electorate in Scotland should not be asked to vote on whether there should be such a power until the Government have made clear how they propose the power should or could be used and its effect. I hope that when he replies the Minister will be able to assure us on that point.
Last week the press in Scotland were reporting—we do not know whether it is correct or not—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer the right honourable gentleman Mr. Gordon Brown was already finding that the suggestion for a 3p variation in the basic rate of income tax was not practicable and was trying to get this changed in the scheme that is being prepared for a Scottish parliament. This is not surprising, but it is unsettling for the public in Scotland. It is very difficult to formulate proposals in this field: much more difficult than the Government have so far suggested. Have the Government already decided on a change following the Chancellor's consideration of this matter since he came into office and will the proposals on tax by then adopted be clearly set out and explained in the White Paper?
Many points have been raised, again in Scotland, by eminent bankers, accountants and others working in the financial field in Scotland who are asking how is it going to affect people who are working north or south of the Border or with bank accounts north or south of the Border. They will wish to know how it is going to
140
affect dividend income and are the registrars of companies going to find out whether dividends are going to people north or south of the Border—will they be subtracting 3p or adding 3p? If so, it is going to be a huge business to do and also it might be unfair, because if it is decided that it is too difficult or complicated it would be the better-off people in Scotland who would probably benefit if dividends were not altered, whereas those people who have income from sources other than dividends would be worse off.
There are also other points which I will not go into here, but this demonstrates that the proposal for a tax varying power must be absolutely clear and decided and the public must be given a chance to understand everything, because they will look to these eminent financial leaders in Scotland for advice as to whether or not it is a good thing. At the moment they are indicating that they have not yet fathomed what it is that is being proposed. I support what the two noble Lords have suggested.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I should like to say that I am very pleased with the phrase "tax varying powers". I think the difficulties enunciated by the distinguished speakers before me can be sorted out in the White Paper. "Tax varying" is a much better phrase than the previous one used, which was "tax raising" because people did not understand what "raising" meant. They were not sure if "raising taxes" did not mean putting them up.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Would the noble Lord not accept that, if the tax varying power is answered in the White Paper in the affirmative, it is liable, whatever it says in the White Paper, which has no statutory authority, to misinterpretation by those who do not want a limited parliament in Scotland?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I think the White Paper and all the people who will be talking about the White Paper throughout Scotland will explain fully what is meant. If you are going to put more into this Bill, which is a simple Bill about a referendum, you are only going to confuse the issue.
Lord Renton: We are really concerned here with the exact meaning of certain important words. I hope that the government spokesman when replying to this interesting debate will tell us in the first place exactly what the Government think the expression "tax varying" means. I would have thought that prima facie it means the power to alter existing taxes only and no power to introduce any kind of new tax. Perhaps the government spokesman would let us know whether that is so.
Personally I hope there is no parliament with any tax varying powers and that people will vote that way, but if they are to be voting on this at all I think they would expect to he able to vote for a parliament to raise or lower existing taxes and to introduce new ones. The word "varying" may or may not mean that. I think we should be told what it means. But because of the uncertainty I really do not think it ought to remain in the Bill.

141
The question is: what should be put in its place? I am sorry to have to say, because I have an immense regard for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and immense gratitude to him for the support that he always gives to the improvement of the wording of statutes, that I am a bit worried about his alternative, which concerns limited power—it does not say in what way it is limited—to raise or lower basic rates of income tax. Of course it must be my ignorance but I do not know how a basic rate of taxation differs from any other rate of taxation. If there is a difference perhaps we should be told. But I do not find it satisfactory to have that phrase. I do not think that people would understand it well enough and it does raise a doubt as to the meaning of the expression "limited power".
Now I come to the alternative proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. They suggest that there should be power to raise or lower taxes. That sounds fine and I would prefer it to "tax varying", but we have to bear in mind that, unless I am wrong, it would not include a power to introduce new taxes unless—and it is arguable—the word "raise" is itself ambiguous. It may be that we use in ordinary conversation the expression "raising taxes". We do not necessarily mean increasing taxes; we mean the power to tax, and that includes the power to impose new taxes. So it may be that the amendment moved by the noble Earl meets the requirements in its ambiguity: in other words it includes the power to raise existing taxes and the power to introduce new ones.
Lord Rees: I rise with a certain diffidence to intervene in this debate because I am very conscious of the stern rebuke from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about shilly-shallying and also of the stern rebuke of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for whom I have warm regard, that we should exercise a certain self discipline. Perhaps I may say at the outset that if the debate has gone a little wide on this amendment and on earlier amendments it is entirely brought on by the approach of the Government to this very important piece of legislation. Had the Government produced either a White Paper or preferably produced and taken through both Houses a Bill to introduce devolution, then we would know exactly what it is we are to consider and what we are to commend to our fellow countrymen in England, Scotland and Wales. As it is, we are left almost totally in the dark. The debate has gone a little wide, therefore, because before we know exactly the powers, scope and mechanism of the referendum we must guess a little bit about what will be the proposals on which the people are to be asked to vote.
This is a particularly important question which is raised by the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, regarding taxing powers, because taxing powers are fundamental to the structure and organisation of the contribution of any legislative body. Some hints have been made at various points over the past few months by the Prime Minister, and indeed beforehand when he was Leader of the Opposition. We understand that even a Prime Minister with such a powerful majority as he evidently has in another place really must not presume too far. After all, he cannot
142
speak for both Chambers of the legislature and there may even be Members on his own Back-Benches— indeed, there is evidence that there may be some—who are a little unhappy about the measures that he has in mind.
However, we understood from the Prime Minister that a Scottish parliament—that is, if such a parliament were established or re-established, and I do not enter into that argument again—is to have powers to reduce or raise income tax by up to a figure of 3 per cent. or 3p in the pound. So far as concerns the reduction of taxes, there is no evidence as to how far such a parliament might reduce taxes. Even that raises a whole raft of questions. Let us assume that the Government of the day have in mind the raising or the reduction of direct taxation. However, that is not what the Bill says. In Clause 1(1) it refers to,
"tax-varying powers of a Scottish parliament".
If they choose in the first clause of the legislation to use different words from those used by the Prime Minister, we must attach some significance to those words; in other words, what exactly are those "tax-varying powers"? To what tax do they apply? If it is direct taxation—for example, income tax—does it also apply to corporation tax? Let us at least simplify the debate for this evening and settle for income tax.
If taxes are to be raised, that will give rise to tremendously delicate questions as to how you define the kind of income on which the impost is to be increased in Scotland. How do you define Scottish income? If that particular sort of income happens to be taxed south of the Border, or even in Wales or Northern Ireland as well, will there be double taxation? These are very technical questions, if the income tax is reduced in relation to Scottish income tax, however defined.
Can the Minister say how the deficit is to be made up? Will the Scottish parliament be entitled to look to UK legislature to increase the funds passing to Scotland because the direct taxation on which the services have been calculated will be reduced by the Scottish parliament? As I said, these are very technical questions, but I believe that the country is entitled to ask them before it is asked to vote on the referendum. We need to know how such a question will be tackled.
I move on now to indirect taxation. If you have different rates of indirect taxation—for example, VAT, Customs duties and excise duties—north of the Border from what applies south of the Border, there will be considerable distortion in what up until now has been one unified market. Will the Minister defend this evening, or indeed at some later stage of the proceedings—if we get that far—such distortions in the UK market? Is he prepared to explain to us how Scottish consumers would be happy with such a situation? There are many such questions to which no answers have so far been given. We have been fobbed off and told that we will discover the answers some time in the course of July from the White Paper.
However, will those questions be answered in that White Paper? My pretext for raising the issues today is that we will need very clear answers to them. Moreover, we shall need time to consider them because they are

143
technical questions which, if they were tackled in any finance Bill, would need a great deal of professional input. I speak as someone who, for good or ill, in both opposition and government, has had to criticise and defend finance Bills. Therefore, I hope that those questions will not be brushed aside. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has performed a signal service in indicating to the Government Front Bench why this is not just a Bill about the mechanics of a referendum. Because of the way in which the Government have chosen to approach the legislation, we must have much more detail about the actual devolutionary measures which they have in mind.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend has made a very important speech. It is no good saying that such matters are irrelevant to a referendum; indeed, they are absolutely relevant and will have a great effect on how people vote. Certainly by the time the White Paper is published, in good time for the whole thing to be explained to people, we hope that we shall know the answers to those questions, even if we do not have them this evening.
For the direct purposes of the amendment, I do not know if the phrase,
"to raise or lower taxes",
as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is clearer than "tax-varying powers"; perhaps it is. However, in his amendments, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggests that the wording should refer to the,
"power to raise or lower basic rates of income tax".
On Second Reading, I believe I understood the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to confirm in his summing up that the 3p, plus or minus, income tax suggested by the constitutional convention was the chosen method that would be included in the White Paper. I believe I understood him to confirm that fact, although I cannot actually spot it in my copy of Hansard at present. Perhaps the Minister will confirm in his reply that that is the case.
If that is indeed so, is it perhaps more accurate to use the wording suggested by the noble and learned Lord, in Amendment No. 61A? If the 3p is put on the basic rate, even I can see enormous complications in such an arrangement. However, if that is to be in the White Paper, it is possible that the wording suggested is clearer. I should be most interested to have clarification of what the Minister said on Second Reading and, if possible, an explanation of whether or not the alternative wording suggested by the noble and learned Lord, is better.
Lord Hooson: Clause 1(1) refers to,
"a referendum [which] shall be held in Scotland on the establishment and tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament".
However, even if we leave out the words "tax-varying powers" and substitute the wording in Amendment No. 8A, the Bill does not set out what those limited powers of a Scottish parliament are to be. Everyone
144
knows that they will be limited powers, and that they will be spelt out in the White Paper and eventually embodied in a Bill.
I turn now to the second proposition; namely, the
"tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament".
There is no need to spell them out at this time any more than it is necessary to spell out the powers of a Scottish parliament because they will, I assume, be circumscribed by the White Paper.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I do not want to spend too much time on the amendment because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, may have gone further than the Government Front Bench would prefer. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made a point by clarifying the situation. The term "tax-varying powers" is not as clear to me as the,
"power to raise or lower taxes".
Coming as I do from financial circles north of the Border, I should like the Front Bench opposite to realise that there is tremendous uncertainty there as to what will happen as a result of the publication of the White Paper and the subsequent legislation. Anything that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, can say to allay the fears of those who are extremely worried about the tax-raising powers in this proposed new parliament would be a great service to everyone, including those who are most concerned with the running of industry and the financial circles north of the Border.
7 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The tremendous uncertainty in Scottish financial circles results from the old process whereby one starts a rumour and then repeats it as often as one possibly can: the rumour then becomes accepted fact. There is absolutely no truth in, for example, what the governor of the Bank of Scotland has been saying about the possibility of a sales tax. There is no truth in the possibility of VAT being raised or lowered. A simple proposition is being put to the people of Scotland; namely, do you want a Scottish parliament with revenue adjusting powers? The document of the constitutional convention makes that absolutely clear. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that my noble friend the Minister referred at Second Reading to the basic rate of income tax and a variation of 3 pence in the pound either way, either up or down. There was no mention of VAT, corporation tax or any of the other taxes that have been mentioned.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the possibility of a Scottish parliament introducing a new tax is also non-existent because a Scottish parliament's powers will be spelt out when we eventually get the devolution Bill. If we get on with this Bill and discover the result of the referendum we shall then know whether we are to have a devolution Bill. That Bill would spell out the Scottish parliament's powers. The powers in relation to taxation are limited to the basic rate of income tax and a variation of 3 pence in the pound up or down. If we tried to introduce any other new tax, we

145
would be acting ultra vires. We would be acting outside the powers defined in the Bill. I do not understand why there is all this confusion when the issue is quite simple.
Lord Renton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. What he said in effect is that because eventually there will be another Bill setting out the powers of a Scottish parliament—if the people vote in favour of one—we do not have to worry very much about the exact phrasing of this Bill when it comes to letting the people vote on tax varying or tax raising powers, whatever they may be. But surely we have to get it right at this stage. People must not be asked to vote on something which could be more elaborate, and therefore considerably different, from what they are being asked to vote for now. We must get the question absolutely right as regards what they are asked to vote for under the Bill.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I rest my case on the reassurance given by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, at Second Reading. I am assuming that that reassurance, which is on the record, will be part of the White Paper when it is published. Members of the Committee opposite are stacking up problems that simply do not exist.
Lord Hughes: I look forward to what my noble friend the Minister has to say on this matter, particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said. The convention's document referred to income tax being raised or lowered by 3 pence. I believe that in the ordinary reading of the English language tax varying powers could not be interpreted as restricting themselves to a single tax. However, if the Minister is to tell us that the use of the tax varying powers will be confined to a variation of income tax, that should be made quite clear.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sure we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for these amendments which draw our attention to the need to clarify the phrase "tax varying" to draw to people's attention the fact that that means the power to raise or lower taxes. I am doubly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because he has managed to get the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, to his feet to defend the second question of the referendum. Yet if my memory is right, the noble Lord resigned as joint chairman of the constitutional convention in protest at the decision by his party to have a referendum and to have that second question—
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I correct the noble Lord because I would not want him to continue with his misunderstanding. I am not defending the second question; I am defending the principle of revenue raising or reducing powers for a Scottish parliament. That is a principle that was promised by the late Lord Home of the Hirsel. One of the reasons we failed to secure the 40 per cent. at the previous referendum was the promise made on the part of the Conservative Party at that time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is nothing like rewriting history. It is amazing how the late
146
Lord Home of the Hirsel is suddenly transformed into a great hero by the party opposite when my recollection is that it did not think much of him when he was Prime Minister. But suddenly he is a great man. He becomes part of the folklore as to why a majority was not achieved in the previous referendum. If one looks at the polls during the run-up to that referendum, one will see that they were badly adrift for the then Labour Government for some weeks before Lord Home intervened.
It is interesting that we have been chastised again by the Liberal Democrat Benches as regards the triviality of these amendments and the fact that we should not bother about them. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was dismissive of any attempt to explore the second question. I know that I am not allowed to quote from certain proceedings—if I were, I would certainly do so—but I commend to him the debates in the House of Commons in Committee stage on 3rd and 4th June when some considerable time was taken up by an amendment of Mr. James Wallace on behalf of the noble Lord's party. The amendment dealt with the second question and proposed incorporating the second question into the first question to make just one question. Not only did Mr. Wallace speak, in moving the amendment and summing up, but also Mr. Gorrie, the new Member for Edinburgh West. Therefore I do not accept that we in this Chamber are wasting time when we discuss these matters. The Scottish leader of the Liberal Democrats in another place spent quite a lot of time debating whether there should be one question. The amendment proposed that the one question should refer to tax raising powers. Clearly, the Liberal Democrat Party in the Commons is still allowed some independence and freedom of thought on government legislation. I have already indicated I am surprised that that amendment is not being moved in this Chamber by the Liberal Democrats. I understand that they do not approve of having a referendum but they feel strongly that there should be only one question.
The question of varying taxation up or down is difficult because it is tied in with the difficult question of the consequences of that either for the Scottish government's expenditure or for Her Majesty's Treasury. I have little doubt that if this Scottish parliament comes about, another penny on the standard rate of tax will most assuredly be needed to cover the costs. Otherwise the costs, which I suspect will be £80 million or £100 million, will have to be met from somewhere in the Scottish block of funds. Therefore the Scottish education budget, the Scottish health budget or moneys to local authorities in Scotland will have to be cut to cover the deficit. Therefore the Scottish parliament will need to raise taxes to cover its running costs. Like Mr. Wallace in another place, I believe that it would be much more honest to ask about tax raising and not tax varying powers. However, if we cannot persuade the Government to go that far, they would do well to consider referring to tax raising or tax varying powers.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy drew our attention to an article last week in the Scotsman which stated that the Government were in some disarray about

147
this part of their White Paper. That may well explain why they are so reluctant to give me a date for the publication of the White Paper. Mr. Peter MacMahon, the Scottish political editor, says that the power to raise or lower the basic rate of income tax is to be dropped by the Government, and members of the ministerial committee on devolution to Scotland and Wales and English regions—it is known as DSWR and, if I am right, is chaired by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—have been working overtime on these issues. Even with the help of the two Scottish Members of Parliament in the Treasury team, the Chief Secretary Mr. Darling and the Economic Secretary Mrs. Liddell, they are having some difficulty with this scheme. I am not surprised. I have some difficulty finding out from the Government what it adds up to—or what it subtracts from.
Let us assume for a moment that the tax-varying power means tax reducing. The Scottish parliament will say to the Inland Revenue that instead of collecting 23p in the pound, or whatever the standard rate will be once the Chancellor has presented his Budget tomorrow, those in Scotland will pay only 20p in the pound. The Inland Revenue will be down something like £450 million in their tax take.
I raised the matter on the debate on the Queen's Speech. I was not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, promised to write to me. She did so; and her letter was interesting but not informative. If I recall the instructions, that is what the ministerial replies are supposed to be. However, she wrote words to the effect that I must wait upon the White Paper.
On the day after the Second Reading of the Bill, I put down a Parliamentary Question for Oral Answer. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, answered from the Dispatch Box. He did not give me much of an Answer when I posed the Question on the Order Paper. In my supplementary question, I spelt out the very question that I posed to the Committee: what happens when the Inland Revenue is £450 million light? What does that say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The noble Lord did not reply to the question even when posed to him by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. But he answered the question when it was posed to him by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who put it rather more bluntly. He asked whether it meant that the English taxpayer will be asked to pay more in taxes in order to make up the £450 million. At that point the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, decided that he had better answer my question. He said,
"If the Scottish parliament were to vary the tax rate downwards, Westminster would lose a possible £450 million of revenue but could deduct that from Scotland's block grant".—[Official Report, 18/6/97; col. 1236.]
I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will wind up this debate. My question to him is this. Is that correct? If this parliament decides to reduce tax by 3p in the pound in Scotland, will the Scottish block lose £450 million? I absolutely believe the answer that the Treasury spokesman gives me because I know that the Treasury runs the Government. But I wish to hear it from the lips of a Scottish Office Minister so that the
148
people in Scotland can see that "tax-reducing" is not some kind of magical, painless promise that will come without any problem, but that it will mean that the Scottish budget will have to come down by £450 million.
That is not a huge amount of money in the Scottish budget. In my recollection, the Scottish budget is about £16.5 billion. But I must tell the Government—and every Member of the Committee who has been in government on either side will confirm this—that budgets are not made in terms of the billions. Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, of whom there are a number around this Chamber, look for the £10 million, the £50 million or sometimes even the £1 million, because they all add up. I am pleased to see that at least one former Chief Secretary agrees with me. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that taking £450 million from the Scottish budget will not be easy, nor will it be painless. It is not easy, nor is it painless to keep spending at its current rate in any department in any year. It will be far more difficult to reduce the amount by £450 million.
The reality is that the Government will not reduce by £450 million. So the idea that they may well reduce taxes is nonsense. Perhaps that is why Mr. Wallace had the integrity to put down in his amendment in another place "tax-raising" instead of "tax-varying". However, there is even more to the word "varying" than that.
On 11th June we had a Statement about the comprehensive public spending review. Again the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and myself had a discussion over the Dispatch Box about the review. I asked whether the comprehensive public spending review would include the Scottish Office. The noble Lord said that it would include every department. I then posed this question. What will happen if it is discovered in the fundamental review—the same ground rules having been applied north and south of the Border and to Wales and Northern Ireland—that the amount of money going to Scotland is excessive and therefore the budget based on the building blocks of spending comes to far less than the Goschen-Barnett formula allows for? Will the Goschen-Barnett formula be cut to accommodate the fundamental spending review? I received some comfort from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. He said:
"There is no intention to make any alteration to the Barnett formula until the review has been completed".—[Official Report, 11/6/97; col. 930.]
As the review will be completed at about the same time as this parliament in Scotland may be set up, there are some significant financial questions to be answered about the tax-varying powers.
Am I wrong? Is it naughty of me to think for a moment that the Government would love a "No" vote on the second question; that they would quite like to be told, "You cannot have tax-raising powers"? And that is why we have a second question in the referendum. That is why the Government broke with the constitutional convention agreement. That is why they were prepared to break with the Liberal Democrats; and that is why they were prepared to oppose Mr. Wallace's amendment when he put it to the vote. He thought so seriously about the matter that he put the amendment to the vote. Is that why the Labour Party

149
have opposed it all along the line? Would it prefer a "No" vote on these tax-varying powers? We look forward to hearing the Minister on this issue.
I posed him a number of questions which I hope he will be able to answer. Is there any truth in the press reports last week, in particular the article in the Scotsman, that the Government are having so much trouble with the Treasury on this issue that they are having to drop it? Will the noble Lord confirm that if the Scottish parliament decides to vary taxes down, it will face a reduction in the block grant from the Treasury? Will he confirm further that, in order to fund this Scottish parliament, if it comes about, the Government will inevitably have to increase taxes on those of us who live in Scotland in order to fund it; or they will have to cut into Scottish expenditure on health, education, and so on?
Before the noble Lord answers that question and makes it appear easy to cut some money out of the Scottish budget, perhaps I may remind him of all the things that he and his right honourable and honourable friends said in the last election in Scotland about how parsimonious the Government were on public spending in Scotland. If there is any potential for the noble Lord to cut into the Scottish budget, either to fund the parliament or to reduce taxation, it seems to me that some of the statements made at the last election were just window dressing.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, asked interesting questions about why we are not open about tax-varying, calling it tax-raising and tax-reducing. I have thrown in another question. Why do we not go along the lines that the Liberal Democrats had the courage to propose in another place; namely, to have one question which says openly that it will be tax-raising and that the idea that it will ever be tax-lowering is pie in the sky?
Lord Sewel: Perhaps I may start by issuing a warning and then seeking the indulgence of the Committee. The matters covered in this group of amendments are somewhat similar to those that we shall address in the next group, so there is a danger that I shall repeat myself. I shall try to reduce the repetition to the minimum and it may be helpful if I try to deal straightaway with some of the questions raised.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, that the Bill's purpose is simple: to establish whether or not the people in Scotland and Wales will have a vote on the detailed proposals to be put before them by the Government through a White Paper. That is the only subject of the Bill. It is not about spelling out in great detail, or in any detail at all, the nature of the scheme. The scheme will be described and made clear in the White Paper which will be before the electorate in Scotland and Wales prior to the referendum.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord has put the question to be posed as being: "Do you agree with the proposals in the White Paper?" But the words in the statute that are put to the electorate are: "Do you want tax-varying powers?" The Minister must face the fact that that is what is in the Bill. Is he saying that there
150
should be unlimited tax-varying powers in a Scottish parliament, powers to vary not only income tax. but VAT, Customs, Excise and so on? Does he mean that?
Lord Sewel: No. Let me make it quite clear that what will be discussed are the particular and precise proposals in the White Paper, which will be detailed and limited. They will form the basis of the decision that the people will make in a referendum. The detailed proposals in the White Paper will then form the basis of the Bill establishing the Scottish parliament, which will indicate clearly and explicitly what those tax-raising powers are. To be more helpful, let me go on. Mention was made of varying the opportunity to create new taxes. The definition of varying with which I am working—and so is everyone else—is the power to vary existing taxes, not to bring in new taxes or establish new taxes.
I go further. In everything that we have ever said on taxation in relation to the powers of the Scottish parliament, we have made clear that it relates to income tax. Great mischief-making is going on in some areas by running scare stories that it is something to do with a sales tax or other forms of taxation. The Government have made clear, throughout the whole process, right from the constitutional convention days onwards, that any tax-varying powers would relate purely and solely to the raising and lowering of income tax.
I wish to deal with a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and, as expected, by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It concerned the business of what would happen if the Scottish parliament increased or decreased income tax by 3p in the pound. Let us go over that. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is right and I do not see why there is any great mystery about it. It is not something that has been pulled out of a hat nor has it jumped out of a box. Clearly, if you reduce taxation, you have to pay for it. It is as simple as that. Reductions in expenditure must be made. We are not dealing with magic mirrors or something similar. It is a simple proposition.
Let us go over it. If the parliament decided to increase tax, the Inland Revenue would collect the extra tax, which would be paid over to the Scottish parliament by the UK Government. If the parliament decreased tax, then the Inland Revenue's overall tax take would be reduced. To reflect that, the overall level of resources passed to the Scottish parliament by way of block grant would be reduced accordingly. That is, if the Scottish parliament should decide to exercise that power. However, I must also stress that there is a world of difference between having a power and exercising that power through a policy. So let us not have another raft of scare stories that Scottish expenditure will be reduced because there will be a wish to reduce the level of taxation in Scotland.
The first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is whether we are dropping the whole income tax power too. The answer is, no, we are not. Wait for the White Paper to see the details. I have answered the second question. The third question was on the running of the parliament. The amount of resource available to the parliament will go there on the tried and tested basis of the block and formula approach and funding of the

151
parliament will have to come from the resources available to it. It is as simple as that. Again, we are not dealing with fancy figures or magic numbers. That is the reality. We have never tried to avoid it.
I turn to more general points. We believe that it is fundamentally important that people in Scotland should be given the opportunity to express their views specifically on the tax-varying proposals. To establish a parliament is an important step. To give the parliament tax-varying powers goes such a significant step further that the Government believe that it is quite right and proper that there should be a separate decision by the people of Scotland on that power.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Can the noble Lord say at what period that revelation came to the Government?
Lord Sewel: It is not so much that the revelation came to the Government. I am trying to bring the revelation to the rest of your Lordships' House. It has been argued that the amendments are intended to clarify the nature of the tax-varying powers of the Scottish parliament on which the Scottish electorate will be invited to vote in the referendum. Their purpose is to change the references to tax-varying powers to refer specifically to income tax and to change references to tax-varying powers to refer instead to powers to raise or lower taxes, if we put the bundle of amendments together.
Members of the Committee have argued that the limited nature of the tax-varying powers which we propose for a Scottish parliament should be reflected in the Bill and in particular there should be no suggestion that the Scottish parliament should be able to change the nature of the tax which it might collect. I hope that at long last I have been able to give an assurance on that— not for the first time—and one which will kill off that mischievous line of argument that we have heard. I understand and appreciate the intention behind the amendments, but I do not believe that they will be helpful additions to the Bill, because they misunderstand the process whereby our proposals for tax-varying powers will be enacted.
The proposition put to the people in Scotland in the referendum is one of principle. The referendum is about issues of principle and not issues of detail. Issues of detail are properly dealt with in the White Paper that forms the basis for the campaign and for the decision at the time when the people come to vote in the referendum. If one starts moving away from principle to detail in the referendum legislation itself, one cannot end the process. It goes on and on. One starts spelling out, as was indicated, the precise nature—dotting i's and crossing t's—of the tax-varying powers. One starts spelling out the details of the general powers which will be transferred. That is not the way to tackle the problem.
The way to tackle the problem and the issue is to make sure that the referendum concentrates on the two principal issues: the establishment of a Scottish parliament and its ability to have tax-varying powers; and giving flesh to those principles and details to those
152
principles through the White Paper which will form the basis of debate and controversy, quite understandably, in Scotland.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him. He must appreciate that a White Paper is not part of the law and that, if there is a "yes" vote enabling the Government to introduce a Bill to lay down the details of a Scottish parliament and the taxing powers, Parliament may not approve all the details of the White Paper when translated into the Bill. Amendments may be made. It may become clear that some of the provisions of the White Paper are simply not workable. So the people will be in a very difficult position and so will the Government.
Lord Sewel: The basis of the referendum is to put to the electorate in Scotland the Government's proposals and to deal with the claim that has been made sometimes in this Chamber and certainly in the other place that there is not a degree of support for the Government's proposals in Scotland and in Wales. That is why the referendum is there: to nail what I would call the misrepresentation that there is not popular support in Scotland and Wales for these proposals. So, it is a means of establishing the degree of popular support in those two countries for the proposals.
Clearly, once we have the White Paper and once there is a referendum, we shall seek to legislate through the Bill to give life to the proposals in that White Paper. So, through all the process, once we get to the stage of this particular Bill having been passed—or, before this Bill is passed—we shall have a White Paper. That will contain the details, as I have said many times. I have only said it so many times because it is a point that I seem to be incapable of getting across to some Members of this Chamber. The White Paper will give the detail. The electorate will vote on the basis of that detail. That is it.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord once again. If he wants, as earlier he said he did, to clarify the Government's intentions, can he tell us how he would wish us to react to Amendment No. 8A by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale? That amendment appears to say exactly what he is telling the Committee.
Lord Sewel: What I am advising the Committee— I expect my noble friends to follow that advice—is that we wish to see the Bill remain as it is proposed without any amendment whatsoever, because that is the most straightforward way of dealing with the issue in principle of deciding whether or not the people of Scotland wish to have a parliament with the power to vary taxation. That is the matter of principle. I believe that that is the way in which we ought to proceed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. As I indicated at the outset, the object was to canvass the opinion of this Chamber on this crucial matter in relation to

153
devolution and therefore in relation to the referendum. Naturally, I am all the more grateful to those who preferred my draft to the others. I was not surprised that my noble friend Lord Perth preferred his amendment but it is far too late for me to start quarrelling with him.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, seemed to me to be most effective and his points were not answered. My only cavil was that there escaped from him the typical reaction to the Treasury of a former Minister of a high spending department.
Before I come to the words of the Minister, I should like to make two comments. First, from the outset I have, I hope, made plain that I believe that a Scottish parliament should have revenue powers. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said about that both at Second Reading and today.
Secondly, power to vary income tax is, I believe, manageable. Power to vary other taxes would be quite impossible. The Layfield Report came down on practical grounds against local income tax. But I am assured by great pundits that modern technology has advanced beyond that point and that, indeed, by the summer there would be no difficulty in a local income tax, either local in England or local in Scotland.
The Minister replied plausibly. But, as a supporter of this Bill, I was deeply disappointed and indeed grieved that, on this crucial matter, he did not answer the point put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona: what is wrong with my amendment? In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, appeared to concede that that expresses what the Government wanted to do. But what he said concerned quite a different question: tax varying. He did not deal at all with the fact that that is an extremely vague phrase and that it could be—is likely to be—used by those who would go considerably further than the Government. The Minister said: "We are asking you to legislate now. We are asking you to legislate in ignorance of the White Paper, but in the White Paper all will be divulged". Members of the Committee may remember the prospectus for the South Sea Company, where investors—speculators—were invited to invest in a scheme subsequently to be resolved and divulged.
This Chamber has been asked to legislate in this Bill and it is simply not good enough to say that, although the Bill suggests an unlimited power of taxation, when we come to the present summer reading of the White Paper it will all be cut down. That is simply not good enough.
As I say, I am disappointed because on balance I support the Bill and I also believe that there is scope for a system of referendum in our parliamentary democracy. But not this referendum. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and the other speakers from the Liberal Democrat Benches that this referendum is entirely unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and other noble Lords— including the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn— said that the electorate made it perfectly plain at the last general election that they wanted a devolved parliament in Scotland and a devolved assembly in Wales. The former is probable; the latter is extremely questionable. Why then do we need this referendum? For two reasons
154
only. The first is that the answer to the first question, "Do you want a Scottish parliament", would strengthen the hands of the Government in bullying Parliament on these matters—particularly your Lordships. The second question was added late in the day because, as I suggested, Mr. Blair got into trouble in Scotland.
We really must have an answer in relation to the effect on Scottish finances of even the limited power suggested by my amendment. We were not told that. We were told that if income tax is reduced by 3p then the block grant will also be reduced by an equivalent amount—£450 million. That sounds as though there will be a double shortfall of revenue in Scotland. We were not told what would be the financial effect if a Scottish parliament raised taxation for increased expenditure, say, on education. That too was quite unanswered.
In the end this is at the heart of the matter and I for one, as a supporter of the Bill, am gravely disappointed at the response we received. However, I said at the outset that I would withdraw the amendment, if only to let my noble friend move his. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage on this Bill be taken not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of their commitment to a human rights-based foreign policy, what is their position with regard to the relationship between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with particular reference to the resolution of the conflict between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the conflict between Azerbaijan and the Armenians of Karabakh, which has cost tens of thousands of Armenian and Azeri lives, caused incalculable suffering and destruction and continues to cause misery to thousands of displaced people and instability in the entire region. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who will be speaking and especially delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Powis, has chosen to make his maiden speech tonight.
I shall set the scene by highlighting some historical facts and relating them to the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination, which must be reconciled if a just and lasting peace is to be found. I must first declare an interest—not pecuniary, but personal. I have just returned from my 32nd visit to the region. My first was in May 1991 when I was asked to lead an international delegation from the Andrei

155
Sakharov Memorial Congress in Moscow to investigate reports of deportations by Azeri forces of Armenians from their ancient homelands. We went without prejudice. We returned deeply disturbed by the evidence of brutality inflicted on innocent Armenian civilians. We subsequently visited Azerbaijan to hear the Azeri viewpoint and returned even more disturbed by their attitudes and policies.
My position has since become one of advocacy for the Armenians of Karabakh, who have been blockaded, besieged and bombarded with ruthless ferocity by Azerbaijan, intent on an explicit policy of ethnic cleansing. As the then Azeri President Elchibey said in June 1992,
"If there is a single Armenian left in Karabakh by October of this year, the people of Azerbaijan can hang me in the central square of Baku".
Many Azeris have also been displaced. But the cause of their displacement has not been repeated massacre and attempted genocide. Azerbaijan encourages visits by politicians and the media to see their people suffering and to hear their version of events. But few people, including the politicians whose decisions will shape the future, visit Karabakh to see the suffering of the Armenians and to hear their point of view. Moreover, major aid organisations such as UNHCR have not been present in Karabakh so the Armenians of Karabakh have been denied both aid and advocacy.
Armenians have repeatedly suffered atrocities at the hands of Turks and Azeris, including the murder of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkey in the genocide of 1915; the massacre of 20,000 Armenians in the ancient Armenian city of Shushi in 1920; and massacres in Sumgait and Baku in 1988 and 1990. That history of genocide and massacre explains why the Armenians of Karabakh can never again accept Azeri sovereignty, and the conduct of the war initiated by Azerbaijan confirms that unacceptability beyond doubt.
During this war the 150,000 Armenians who live in Karabakh managed to withstand assaults by 7 million strong Azerbaijan, helped by Turkey with manpower and weapons and by several thousand mujahedeen mercenaries. In any war human rights will be violated by both sides. But there is a systematic asymmetry which proves that Azerbaijan has been the primary aggressor for at least seven reasons.
First, it was Azerbaijan, with Soviet 4th Army troops, which undertook "Operation Ring" in 1991: the brutal policy of systematic deportation of Armenians. Secondly, in October 1991 Azerbaijan announced its intention to annul Karabakh's autonomous status and to rename its capital city Stepanakert with a Turkish name. The Armenians saw that as the beginning of the end and resorted to the only constitutional means available to them. They held a referendum which gave an overwhelming mandate for independence and they elected their first parliament. Azerbaijan responded with full-scale military offensives.
Thirdly, in the ensuing war it was Azerbaijan which first used Grad multiple-missile rocket launchers against civilians. Between January and May 1992 I counted
156
400 Grad missiles every day bombarding civilians in Stepanakert. Other towns and villages also suffered sustained bombardment from towns in Azerbaijan proper, which eventually forced the Armenians of Karabakh to occupy those towns as a buffer zone.
Fourthly, only Azerbaijan used aerial bombardment of civilians, dropping 500 kg bombs from low-flying aircraft on to women and children. Fifthly, only Azerbaijan used ground-to-air missiles, detonated to explode over civilian targets. With no advance warning, people could not take cover. missiles exploded and razor-sharp shrapnel shredded anyone in the fall-out area. Sixthly, Azerbaijan and Turkey still maintain the infamous blockade of Armenia. Even after the earthquake in 1988 Azerbaijan would not allow the passage of humanitarian aid to the affected areas. Seventhly, in Armenia just a few weeks ago I met young Armenian soldiers abducted during the ceasefire and saw on their bodies the evidence of torture inflicted by their Azeri captors. That is why it is a travesty of the truth for so many media to label Armenians as the aggressors.
To come briefly to the present, despite the precarious ceasefire, which has held for over three years, people on both sides continue to suffer. Many Azeri refugees are still kept in harsh conditions in camps in Azerbaijan, and visitors are taken to see them. By contrast, Armenia, with comparable numbers of people made homeless by earthquake and war, and suffering from the continuing blockade, has found accommodation for all its displaced people. Visitors to Azerbaijan might ask what Azerbaijan has done with UNHCR money and why it has not been as successful as Armenia, with all its problems, in providing for its displaced people.
Current demands by Azerbaijan for the return of Shushi and Lachin to Azeri control indicate a lack of serious willingness by the Azeris to achieve a positive outcome to negotiations. The taking of the Lachin corridor and the town of Shushi by the Armenians of Karabakh were essential for their survival. That corridor is a vital lifeline for supplies, and Shushi, on a hill above Stepanakert, was a base for firing 400 Grad rockets a day on to the capital city. It is the equivalent of a Golan Heights.
Armenians cannot ignore the continuing build-up by Azerbaijan of its armed forces and weapons. Recent reports of Russian sales of weapons to Armenia fail to mention the massive purchases of arms by Azerbaijan by countries such as Ukraine, including Smerch and Uregan long-range missiles and fighter aircraft. If further conflict were to break out, and Azerbaijan attempts another genocide or ethnic cleansing, Armenia cannot stand passively by. If Armenia were to engage, this could trigger a regional war, which would cause incalculable suffering and destabilise the entire region, militarily, politically and economically.
It is thus of the utmost importance that the international community prevails on Azerbaijan to desist from further military offensives and to seek a political solution which takes into realistic account the deeply-rooted fears of Armenians, based on long experience of Azeri repression, which prevents them from ever again being able to accept Azeri sovereignty.
Such a political solution must give comparable weight to the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, recognised in the foundation of the OSCE. It was very unfortunate that the OSCE chairman's statement at the Lisbon Summit prejudged the outcome of the Minsk deliberations, giving unwarranted preference to the principle of territorial integrity at the expense of self-determination. That is totally inappropriate, as those borders have no moral or legal integrity. Karabakh had never been part of Azerbaijan until Stalin's autocratic decision in the 1920s. There is no legitimate justification for Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.
The UN recognises that no people should be required to live under the rule of a state which has attempted their genocide. The Armenians of Karabakh genuinely desire peace and are willing to discuss political solutions, such as a horizontal relationship with Azerbaijan, but they cannot accept subjugation to Azerbaijan. The credibility of the OSCE is at stake; it cannot be in its long-term interests to try to inflict a political solution which flouts the principles of justice and demonstrates the truth of Churchill's comment that the tragedy of the Armenian people is that blood is lighter than oil.
I therefore ask the Minister whether he can give an undertaking that any contribution made by Britain to the OSCE deliberations will respect both the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity.
Your Lordships will remember Hitler's cynical question before embarking on the genocide of Polish Jews: "Who now speaks of the Armenians?" This debate shows that there are people who still speak of the Armenians. If the international community betrays their just cause and relegates them to an unjust subjugation to Azeri Turks who have already attempted their genocide, we will continue to speak of them; and those who consign them to this fate, in the interests of economic gain or political expediency, will be criticised by us, and, I dare to venture, condemned by history.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Powis: My Lords, my father was shy of public speaking and believed he could help more with local matters than with broader political issues. He never in his short period as Earl felt he could usefully contribute to the House of Lords, although he did say that there were two issues which would bring him here: if it looked likely that capital punishment was about to be re-enacted, or if it looked likely that women were going to be denied the priesthood. The four-year delay before my maiden speech is in part because I am my father's son. I am nervous and would find it easier to stay at home, but I feel that the subject today is important.
Your Lordships may have noticed that, curiously, I am quoted in a recent Telegraph supplement already as a spokesman for your Lordships' House, having not yet spoken in it. I failed to resist the temptation to fill out a questionnaire on the House. I have attended as an observer a number of times and have noted that this House is an unusually benevolent and efficient entity.
158
I also feel that the House has, in its characteristic reticence, not managed to draw public admiration. So few know the truth and so many continue to believe that here is merely a gentleman's club where dining and whining are at public expense and where the inhabitants generally get in the way of sensible change.
Nagorno-Karabakh has a similar publicity problem but with dire consequences. It is a small and isolated Armenian community surrounded by Azerbaijan, a country which, the world on the whole allows, has a right to remove the traditional inhabitants and replace them with its own. As a member of Christian Solidarity International—CSI—I have been deeply concerned about the tragic conflict between Azerbaijan and Karabakh and the suffering it has caused to both Armenians and Azeris.
I am aware that a maiden speech should not be controversial, and I have found this to be a difficulty, particularly in the context of a war. But my focus is on the need for a secure peace, and the desperate need for humanitarian aid for the people of Karabakh, who have been denied help from major aid organisations.
I must first declare an interest, as a Christian. Karabakh has always been Armenian, as far back as 310 AD when Armenia became the first officially Christian nation. Karabakh has a number of ancient churches and Christian monuments, confirming its venerable Armenian history. Counter to this, chiefly because of Stalin's policies towards different cultures in the region, the Azeris feel that Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan, and this dispute is what lies behind the fighting in recent years between a country of 7 million Azeris and an enclave of 150,000 Armenians.
During the 1991 offensive, when Azerbaijan had overrun 40 per cent. of Karabakh, the Azeris tried to destroy all of these cultural evidences. Remarkably, this offensive was repelled. Churches and houses are now gradually being rebuilt. In this struggle 80,000 people had to flee to Karabakh's capital, Stepanakert, where bombardment and starvation made survival improbable. Major aid agencies did not help and this has remained largely the case since then. There is considerable suffering now in the enclave, and this will be worse when winter returns.
Azerbaijan has rich oil fields; it has inherited Soviet arms; and it has had publicity on its side because many visitors come to Azerbaijan in connection with oil, and they report the Azeri point of view. The Karabakhis have virtually no opportunity to present their plight because of the blockade. This, combined with the absence of humanitarian aid, puts Nagorno-Karabakh in a desperate situation. There is precedent for aid. In other disputes over territory in that region Christian aid agencies have helped both sides.
They are a people the world has forgotten. They have survived, but unless they receive a degree of recognition from Her Majesty's Government and others, their days are numbered. I do not have the time now to put before noble Lords the policy of ethnic cleansing stressed by a succession of Azeri leaders. This aim, together with the Karabakh concern to preempt it, can only lead to further bloodshed. A proper peace cannot come unless other

159
nations provide an impartial atmosphere. The prevailing tacit endorsement of the Azeri position can only contribute to more death and horror.
I therefore ask the Minister, first, whether Her Majesty's Government would recognise that Karabakh cannot accept Azeri sovereignty. Secondly, would the Government press for access by organisations so far excluded from Karabakh, who could meet the urgent needs of the civilians there? Thirdly, in the absence of such organisations, would the Government provide some assistance to organisations such as CSI, which are able to take in urgently needed aid?

I thank your Lordships for your patience. The time limits and the traditions of your Lordships' House, which expect a maiden speech to be brief, mean that I must stop.
8 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I warmly congratulate the noble Earl on his maiden speech. That he has chosen to support the noble Baroness in a noble cause—that of the human rights of a small and beleaguered group of people—and that he has done it so effectively and with no sign of the nerves that he mentioned, is a happy augury for this House. We look forward to hearing him again on many future occasions.
It is always an honour to be able to support the noble Baroness. She has often taken her life in her hands to bring help to beleaguered and suffering people and to tell the world about them, as she so well knows how to do. She has been in distinguished company—Andrei Sakharov, for one. But I have never admired her courage more than I do today.
After the Denver Summit 10 days ago, Russia, the United States and France commended the latest OSCE proposal for Nagorno-Karabakh. These,
"recognise the republic as a multi—ethnic autonomous identity under Azerbaijani sovereignty, with the right to its own constitution, emblem, national anthem and flag"—
very generous—
"and [proclaims it] a free economic zone with a budget financed exclusively from its own resources, and the right to its own national guard and military police".
The proposals go on to require the Karabakh armed forces to be withdrawn within the boundaries which existed in 1988, (i.e., the original Soviet-dictated borders). That would require the Armenian-occupied Lachin corridor—Nagorno-Karabakh's only access to Armenia and thus to the world, and the lifeline of the country for which it fought when Azerbaijan and its ally Turkey tried to cut it off—to be given up. The OSCE then proposes the following interesting plan,
"Around the 1988 borders the OSCE would create a sort of buffer zone, of which the parameters have not been set".
As for the Lachin corridor, it would be,
"leased to Azerbaijan by the OSCE"—
a very novel idea—
"which would set the borders and be responsible for the link between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. Lachin district would come under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. Azerbaijani refugees would be returned to Armenian-held territory".
160
Many of these Azerbaijanis are the equivalent of the Turks imported into northern Cyprus by Turkey.
The Caspian could become as much a flashpoint as the Middle East has been on occasion, and for the same reason—the presence of oil. The British, French, Russians, Americans, Turks, Japanese and even the Iranians now have substantial oil interests there, and so the governments concerned want to see peace in the area. I do not quarrel with that, but I do most strongly suggest that Azerbaijan needs us as much as we need them and we should be using the much-vaunted European Union, which believes it has a foreign policy entity, not to appease, but to exert influence in favour of a just settlement for a small and beleaguered Christian entity.
A US congressman who visited Nagorno-Karabakh in January said that the US must be persuaded that it could resolve the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh without damaging its oil interests in the Southern Caucases. It is in our long-term interest to do the same.
The OSCE proposals will have to be rethought. Whose troops would enforce the OSCE plan and for how long? We have many levers at our disposal to bring pressure to bear on the Azeris. They want to join the Council of Europe and are actually being encouraged to think that they can do so while they continue to abuse human rights. In January they had a large grant from the European Union to help Azerbaijani refugees who suffered in the conflict. What about those in Nagorno-Karabakh? The IMF, the World Bank, and the EBRD are all supporting the Azeris. Azerbaijan is a Partner for Peace. Let us put peace and genuine enforceable freedom for the country on the agenda for the first meeting of the NATO—Russian Council.
I believe that because of the very great importance that Russia as well as the West attach to stability and peace in the area, it is in our power, through NATO, because of the CFE treaty and many other things, through the Council of Europe and through all the major international funding bodies to whom the Azeris are supplicants, to exact a settlement which would preserve Nagorno-Karabakh's lifeline, the Lachin corridor, opening the country to investment and letting in UN aid and refugee agencies which are so conspicuous by their absence. I urge the Minister to recognise that our vital interests in the area, stability and trade, actually require us to exert a positive influence on Baku in relation to human rights rather than to appease them. I urge the Minister to recognise that. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia have given a cautious welcome to the Denver statement because they need the great powers to be committed to a solution. But the OSCE plan is no solution at all for Nagorno-Karabakh itself and is in any case unworkable.
Finally, I suggest that BP should be strongly encouraged, in the interests of its own public relations, to indicate clearly to the Azeris that it is in their interest to work for a sensible and fair settlement.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I feel that I should start by expressing my sympathy for the very sad and unexpected bereavement suffered by my noble

161
friend Lady Cox whose husband died last Saturday. I feel sure that none of us who know her is surprised that she has decided to carry straight ahead with this debate, which she opened with her unique knowledge of the subject, her customary compassion and accuracy. Indeed, having been privileged to enjoy the friendship also of her late husband, Dr. Murray Cox, I am sure that that is exactly what he would have wished her to do.
I also join my noble friend Lady Park in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Powis, on his excellent and well informed maiden speech.
My justification for participating in the debate is that in the summer of 1991 I went with an international human rights delegation, led by my noble friend Lady Cox, on the second of her 32 missions to Nagorno-Karabakh. I have also read all of her reports of the 30 subsequent visits. In case anyone should think that my noble friend is in any way affected by Christian bias against the Azeris, I can tell your Lordships of one occasion, at the height of the conflict, when she asked me (in that rather irresistible way she has) if the charity which I founded would send what was for us a very large sum of money to support Azeri refugees. Medical Relief International (MERLIN) had obtained a promise of the sum in question from European Union sources, but it would have taken months to be paid, too late to help the refugees in question. I am glad to say that we were able to provide the bridging loan in question, plus some additional finance and MERLIN's mission was successful. But those Azeri refugees would not have been helped without the intervention of my noble friend Lady Cox.
The purpose of our visit in 1991 was to discover whether there was any truth in Armenian allegations about the savage clearance of the Armenian villages in Nagorno-Karabakh, largely by Azeri OMON troops, but with Russian Soviet Spetznaz and political support. We also visited Baku, still under the communist control of Mr. Mutalibov at the time, and we went to Yerevan as well. Alas, the Armenian allegations certainly were true. Mr. Gorbachev was in London at the time, needing to make a good impression at the G7 talks. That may explain why we were allowed unprecedented access by Soviet helicopters to most of the villages in Nagorno-Karabakh which we asked to see.
I will not trouble noble Lords with the brutality of what we saw and heard. A full report, together with very distressing photographic evidence, was given to the Foreign Office at the time. Suffice to say that the Armenian villagers of Nagorno-Karabakh were ruthlessly cleared out to be replaced by Azeri inhabitants. At the time the Armenian population was almost entirely unarmed. Its crime was merely that Armenia had voted to secede from the Soviet Union whereas Azerbaijan had not yet done so. Of course, we went to a number of Azeri villages as well to hear their side of the story.
I have time to offer your Lordships only one impression from that process; it shows how different the two races are. Sometimes the villages were less than a mile apart, but the people had not intermarried. Each side accused the other of firing the first shots, but the
162
presence of so many Spetznaz troops made one suspect that they were perhaps the guilty party. Be that as it may, after so much bloodshed in the five years which followed our visit, peaceful cohabitation must be an impossible prospect, as my noble friend Lady Cox said.
I offer one other observation. Your Lordships' House has discussed the tragic plight of the Armenians at Karabakh perhaps half a dozen times in the past six years. Yet as far as I know, not a single one of your Lordships has yet spoken against the position born of such hard experience and so knowledgeably put forward by my noble friend Lady Cox. And this is in spite of the support which Azerbaijan inevitably attracts outside this Chamber because of her massive oil reserves.
Now that I have made the point, perhaps some noble Lord will come forward to say that my noble friend Lady Cox is wrong and that the Armenians, not the Azeris, are the villains of this terrible piece. All I can say is that I trust that the noble Lord in question, if he emerges, will read with care your Lordships' guidelines on the declaration of commercial interests before he dares to put forward such an absurd proposition.
No, my Lords, my noble friend is right. If the Armenians of Karabakh are returned to any form of Azeri control, yet more bloodshed must inevitably follow. The Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh are Armenian and must be part of Armenia forever.
8.11 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as chairman of the British-Armenian parliamentary group. As we have heard, we are discussing one of the potential powder kegs of the world today.
The ancient Armenian kingdom stretched from the Mediterranean to the Caspian. It was an area continually fought over by the Assyrian, Persian, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Most recent was the genocide of 1915. That is a fact corroborated extensively in the Foreign Office files in Whitehall. It led to condemnation by all the leaders of what were later to be the victorious allies. But in 1918, nothing was done because Turkey was saying, "You need us against Bolshevism", as it did in 1945 when it said, "You need us against communism. Oh, and by the way, can we join NATO?"; and as it did at the break-up of the Soviet Union when it said, "We are a good export market".
In spite of all that evidence here, Her Majesty's Government are still about the only civilised Western Government who have not officially recognised the genocide of 1915. Perhaps this new Government will consider doing so, or are Turkish blandishments still too strong?
In 1920, Armenia chose to come under the protection of the Soviet Union because the Armenians preferred to be red rather than dead, as they certainly would have been had they remained independent and at the mercy of Turkey. Comrade Joseph Stalin, working on the old Roman principle of keeping the vassal states at loggerheads with each other so as not to cause him any trouble in Moscow, gave the Armenian province of

163
Artsek, now known as the Nagorno-Karabakh as an autonomous oblast to Azerbaijan and in the early 1930s cut the land links to Armenia proper at Lachin.
To keep the pot boiling, he then gave part of the old Armenian Khanate of Yerevan, now known as Nakhichevan, to Azerbaijan, although it had no land connection to Azerbaijan and a large part of Armenia lay in between.
Acting under the old Soviet constitution—I think it was Clause 60—covering the rights of self-determination subject to a referendum, Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence and secession from the Soviet Union on the latter's demise. Although Whitehall sanctimoniously wrings its hands and bleats the sanctity of the later Helsinki Agreement to preserve the status quo, in fact, the legal status quo at the time was an independent Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nakhichevan was the subject of ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan. Having a common border with Armenia, the Armenian inhabitants were able to leave but not so in Nagorno-Karabakh, whose inhabitants were cut off from Armenia proper.
As we have heard, two presidents of Azerbaijan are on record as saying that they will exterminate all Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh and, after invasion, have continually tried to pursue a military solution. But the Armenians are front-line soldiers while the Azeris were always in the administrative corps of the old Soviet army. The result was obvious. Excellent though they are, it would be like putting up the Army Catering Corps against a brigade of Guards, a pretty obvious outcome in any battle. The Azeri invaders were kicked out and a cordon sanitaire was established to avoid shelling by Grad rockets, as we have heard from the noble Baroness. So there is no military solution.
But there is one development which can either ignite the powder keg or, in my opinion, create an enforced peace in the area. I refer to the vast quantities of oil under the Caspian Sea. When I was first in the Karabakh in 1993, I proposed at an interview that, as the Black Sea and Iran are out of the question, the only sensible way to get that oil out for world markets would be a pipeline from Baku and the Baku area, across Azerbaijan, through southern Armenia to Nakhichevan and there, via its common border with Turkey, to the presently under-used oil port at Sihan on the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, the drawback now is that the oil would be going into Turkey through an area where the Turks are now, with their true traditional Genghis Khan attitude, knocking hell out of the poor Kurds.
In that way, all participants would benefit and would have a measure of control, having their own tap which they could turn off. Also, under the Helsinki Agreement, the illegal blockade of Armenia by Turkey and Azerbaijan would come to an end. I use the simile that, if everyone has their hands on everyone else's throat, nobody will start squeezing.
The Macchiavellian oil companies, with their massive wealth, evidently silenced the UN Security Council when Azerbaijan invaded the Nagorno-Karabakh, and
164
they mounted a vast PR campaign against the Karabakhi Armenians, who were fighting for their homeland and against the ethnic cleansing with its attendant atrocities, as we have heard from the noble Baroness. Those companies are still actively subservient to Azerbaijan in the hope of good contracts, although it is still subject to doubt as to which nation owns what of the Caspian oil.
The recent announcement through OSCE that Nakhichevan should be linked to Azerbaijan by a land link is merely prompted by a desire for a route for the pipeline to pass wholly through Azerbaijan territory and give away yet another part of Armenia. Is that going to be another lever to try to obtain sovereignty by Azerbaijan over the Karabakh? If so, it will just be the match to the powder keg. Her Majesty's Government should please watch out and they should be grateful to the noble Baroness for asking this Question.
8.18 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing this Question this evening with her usual indomitable courage at this time, matched only by her courage in all her activities around the world.
I congratulate also the noble Earl, Lord Powis, on his maiden speech. My wife had the pleasure of sitting at his feet when he was speaking in Swansea a few days ago and so I am not surprised at his eloquence. I hope that we shall see him here often.
I wish to ask the Government about the political settlement between the Azeris and the Armenians which has been mentioned by other noble Lords. The facts have been well documented this evening. There are 150,000 Armenians living in that enclave in Azerbaijan and their ancestors have been there for centuries and centuries.
The Azeris have talked quite clearly, from the president downwards, of their desire for ethnic cleansing to remove all Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. The Azeris tried to conquer the enclave but the Armenians held out extremely successfully, as has been said. There has been a ceasefire for three years but it is rather tremulous and not entirely working.
The suffering on both sides has been terrible. The fighting has caused misery, as has the bombing. Also, there is terrible suffering for those taken prisoner. That needs to be highlighted. Perhaps I may give a couple of instances. Most recently, there was an example of a young Azeri soldier who deserted to the Armenians because of the abuse that was taking place in Azerbaijan's army. It seems likely that that young man will now be given political asylum in Armenia. Other returning prisoners of war from Azerbaijan speak of systematic abuse and maltreatment. For instance, one man was beaten unconscious almost daily—sometimes three times a day—denied food and water, burnt with hot skewers and finally scarred with knives and cigarettes which left a cross etched on his back. Another example is that of a woman who was captured in August 1996 during the supposed ceasefire. She is now mentally ill as a result of multiple rape and other maltreatment endured at the hands of the Azeris. These horrific stories

165
bear further testimony to the asymmetry that is evident in this conflict and its continuation even during the ceasefire.
I should like to put three questions to the Minister. First, what is the present position with regard to OSCE activity and its supposed aim to bring to this area a settled, permanent and just peace? We all know how important that is. Obviously it is important to BP and the oil interests of other countries. It is essential to avoid the suffering, hardship and cruelty that has occurred. Both civilians and armed forces are suffering very much. The recent publicity given to the OSCE's activities has been discouraging. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide more encouraging information about what that body is doing at the present time. Secondly, will the Government use their influence with both the Armenian and Azeri governments as well as with the OSCE to promote justice in the area? Thirdly, will the Government press for an independent public investigation of the violations of the third and fourth Geneva conventions and ensure that the results are publicised?
The Government have strongly emphasised their commitment to human rights. Human rights are being violated in these countries time and again. Will the Government do their utmost to ensure that they are properly and publicly investigated by people who do not have commercial interests in either country so that they are truly independent? I hope that that investigation will then be fully publicised.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like to speak very briefly in the gap in support of my brave and noble friend Lady Cox. Some years ago I walked through the Peers' Dining Room and met her having tea with a group of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. She asked me to join her. I listened to their tragic stories of horror. They were brave, good Christian people. I happened to have with me a bunch of snowdrops which I was arranging at the Peers' Entrance. I gave the Armenians a snowdrop which they placed in their Bible. I told them that it was the flower of hope. My noble friend Lady Cox has been the snowdrop of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. She is their flower of hope.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I too rise to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Powis, on his maiden speech. It is appropriate that he should speak with such sensitivity, confidence and strength in this debate. He does so on a day when my noble friend Lady Cox has spoken from the heart. Her personal courage is second to none. Not least for that reason she remains greatly loved and admired by all with whom she works both inside and outside this House.
The principles of self-determination and territorial integrity have been at the heart of foreign policy and diplomacy across the centuries. Throughout the 20th century they have shaped our geopolitical landscape, and there is no doubt that they will continue to do so. If one were to compare maps of Europe throughout this
166
century, from its early years to its dying days, one would be able to chart the geographical and physical effects of modern territorial integrity and self-determination. It would become clear as one looked at the maps that such forces could be dangerous and harmful if unleashed and harnessed to the cause of extremism. Self-determination—the right of a people to govern themselves—is often a fine and praiseworthy goal, but self-determination extended too far can become separatism and nationalism, which we have seen lead to ethnic cleansing and genocide in our century. Territorial integrity—a nation's right to maintain its borders—has a justified place in international law, but not if it is extended too far and becomes territorial encroachment.
The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and the resultant dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan is but one example of the destruction that these forces can wreak. The unresolved eight year-old conflict over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh continues to plague both Armenia and Azerbaijan. The stakes are very high. Neither country can achieve its economic potential while the dispute remains unresolved. The external trade embargo imposed by the Azerbaijani Government on Armenia has caused much economic hardship, while Azerbaijan cannot fulfil the estimated huge potential of the Caspian oil reserves with so much instability within its territory.
As my noble friend Lady Cox has argued, the Armenian parliament has understandably refused to accept any solution to the conflict which refers to Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, while Azerbaijan has annulled Nagorno-Karabakh's former autonomous status and prospects for negotiated settlement remain as elusive as ever.
I should be grateful if the Minister could answer a few questions. Is it the Government's objective to maintain diplomatic relations with both countries but to continue with the imposition of the two arms embargoes imposed in 1992 as a result of a decision by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe? Is it the Government's view that any solution should be based on the sovereignty of Azerbaijan with real autonomy for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh?
One of the UK's priorities rightly has been to provide humanitarian relief to the estimated one million displaced people in Azerbaijan. To meet their needs is a keenly felt and urgent humanitarian requirement that arises from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Over £5 million in direct humanitarian relief has wisely been provided to Armenia since 1993. Since December 1992 the United Kingdom has provided almost £3.8 million in direct humanitarian aid to Azerbaijan, primarily to assist the displaced population. Can the Minister inform the House whether the Government intend to continue this? Much of this has been channelled through the UNHCR, the World Food Programme, the International Committee of the Red Cross, MERLIN and Christian Solidarity International, bringing relief and food to the displaced population. Will this policy on disbursement continue?
Given their commitment to a human rights based foreign policy, I very much hope that the Government will continue the admirable work that has already been

167
done by the former Overseas Development Administration for the resettlement of refugees and the humanitarian relief of the populations of both Armenia and Azerbaijan. The UK has responsibility to both of these westward-looking countries to continue to take a proactive role in finding a solution to their dispute and in assisting to build the infrastructure and economic reforms through trade, investment and the exchange of know-how that will lead those countries to a peaceful and prosperous future.
There are three key areas in which I urge the Government to continue to act for the benefit of the region and the global community. First, there is an historic opportunity to change the face of this region dramatically. I urge the Government to continue to play a role in this by subscribing fully to the OSCE principle that frontiers are inviolable and can be changed only peacefully by agreement. Any change in the status of Nagorno-Karabakh would have to be mutually agreed with the authorities of the countries concerned. The right to self-determination does not equate automatically to a right to succession.
Secondly, the UK has a fine record for the sharing of ideas with policy makers in the Caspian region. The United Kingdom has a diplomatic presence in both countries, and there have been regular high level visits on both sides since diplomatic relations were established. I urge the Government to continue the work of the Know How Fund. This has enabled both Armenia and Azerbaijan to benefit from the wealth of expertise in the United Kingdom on subjects ranging from privatisation to environmental legislation.
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will continue their assistance to British companies operating and trading in the region. Trade is the key to long-term success for the nations of the former Soviet Union, which cannot build firm relations with the West unless international business invests resources to help entrench real independence from Russia.
In conclusion, I fear that the disputes caused by movements of self-determination and the resultant conflicts to maintain territorial integrity can never be relegated to the history books. However, over the past 17 years the UK has always been ready to act with the international community, and to play a full and respected role in finding a solution to such conflicts. I wish the Government well in ensuring that that reputation remains intact and untarnished.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating the debate. Her presence in distressing circumstances demonstrates only too clearly her commitment to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. Everything she said, echoed by other noble Lords, indicates that. I commend the moving and informed maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Powis. I trust that now he has decided to take an active oral part in the business of the House he will continue to find us benevolent and, it is hoped, even efficient.
168
In her report of Christian Solidarity International's visit to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the noble Baroness noted that a just and lasting peace would enable the region to develop its economic potential and democratic process to the full. The Government entirely agree with that objective. The region has great potential. Unfortunately, the immediate consequences of independence from Soviet rule were catastrophic ethnic conflicts and horrendous human rights abuse leading to disruption of economic, commercial and private life, not just in Nagorno-Karabakh but in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia.
Since the ceasefire in 1994 in Nagorno-Karabakh all three countries have taken drastic and successful measures which have improved their position, but the human rights problems remain. The noble Baroness says that she is an advocate of the Armenian people of Nagorno-Karabakh. I respect that and the position taken in support of the Armenian cause by other noble Lords. There are two sides to the issue. It may well be that the aggression in response to the declaration of independence was started by the Azeris, but 20 per cent. of the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan is under Armenian occupation. There are 900,000 Azerian refugees and 300,000 Armenian refugees. We have heard horrific stories from the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and others.
Within Azerbaijan itself, the human rights position still causes the Government concern. Human rights organisations are concerned about breaches of due process in trials of political prisoners. We and our partners within the EU have urged the Azeri authorities, and will continue to do so, to move towards democratic reform; to allow political parties access to the media; and to establish an independent electoral position. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and other noble Lords asked whether I could give a commitment that the Government would put pressure on the Azeris to follow down that road. We will do so directly and with our partners in the EU. The authorities in Azerbaijan realise that progress on human rights must be a condition of the entry to the Council of Europe which they seek, and that human rights performance is one of the criteria taken into account in the partnership and co-operation agreement with the EU.
Against that tragic background, the Government have been working to try to encourage all three Transcaucasus states to perceive their common interests. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to aid under the previous government. Between 1992 and 1994 nearly £1 million was given in aid to agencies working with refugees and internally displaced people as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Since 1992 over £9 million has also been given in bilateral emergency relief to Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is the Government's intention to continue that generous policy.
The noble Earl, Lord Powis, referred to possible help for Christian Solidarity International. He will be aware that there was a grant of £327,000 to that organisation. We will look at the position in future. The best form of aid in these circumstances is bilateral; that is, aid which goes to both sides—to Armenia, and thereby to Nagorno-Karabakh, and to the Azeris.

169
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about the Government's position on the relationship between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also asked about that. The OSCE's principles guiding relations between participating states were adopted in 1975. The second of those principles refers to the inviolability of internationally recognised frontiers, and the fourth refers to the territorial integrity of states.
The Government have not yet reviewed the position in relation to the Caucasus developments, but our principal position is that the OSCE principles that frontiers are inviolable is the only sensible way of proceeding in international relations. Any change in the status of Nagorno-Karabakh has to be mutually agreed by the authorities of the countries concerned. Territorial integrity is, after all, at the heart of the UN and the OSCE's approach to international relations, and whether international boundaries were imposed by history or Soviet imperialism, or by any other form of imperialism elsewhere in the world, our approach has always been that those boundaries can be altered only by agreement.
The eighth OSCE principle relates to self-determination. It is worth mentioning that for the purposes and principles of the UN Charter that is operative with reference to the relevant norms of international law. They include not just references to human rights but those relating to territorial integrity of states. Our position on the issue does not apply just to Nagorno-Karabakh. It applies throughout the world, but in particular in that part of the world it applies to Abkhazia where we have made clear our support for the territorial integrity of Georgia.
A number of accusations have been made that the position of Her Majesty's Government, of the previous government and of other countries, has been swayed unduly by commercial interests within Azerbaijan. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, went as far as to suggest that the UN Security Council was persuaded by such motives. I cannot answer for every country, but although the UK has major commercial and oil-based interests in Azerbaijan our support for the integrity of the borders of Azerbaijan predated Britain's involvement in the exploitation of Caspian oil. Indeed, the first major oil contract was not signed until 1994. We do not let the oil interests affect our policy. It is interesting that 53 out of the 54 OSCE member states supported maintaining the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Many have no commercial or other interests within Azerbaijan. Our approach is shared by the international community as a whole.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and others asked about the position of the OSCE. At its summit in Lisbon in December, the OSCE's chairman-in-office issued a statement which, as I said, was supported by 53 out of 54 member states. The exception of course was Armenia. That confirmed that three principles should form the basis of the settlement. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that they are, first, the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia and the
170
Azerbaijan Republic; secondly, the legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh to be defined in an agreement based on self-determination to the highest degree possible; and, thirdly, the guaranteed security for Nagorno-Karabakh and its whole population, including mutual obligations to ensure compliance by all parties with the provisions of the settlement.
The Government's view continues to be that these three principles should provide the framework for an agreement. The key question is the degree of autonomy that Nagorno-Karabakh will have, in particular in relation to the human and democratic rights of its population. The Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh needs to be reassured on how its future security, so seriously threatened by recent years of conflict, can be protected. The British Government, with their commitment to human rights, will ensure that the international community puts the issue central to reaching an agreement on this difficult matter.
The international community has worked extremely hard since 1992 to try to find a settlement. The OSCE has mandated its Minsk Group to lead international effort to resolve the conflict. Since the beginning of this year, the group has been led by a troika of the US, Russia and France. Although the United Kingdom is not a member of that group, we are giving full support to its efforts. Your Lordships will have noticed that Presidents Clinton, Yelstin and Chirac emphasised in a side statement at Denver their commitment to that process.
The noble Baroness and others referred to the maintenance of the ceasefire. That is, indeed, a positive sign. There have been intermittent violations of the ceasefire, which demonstrates that the situation remains fragile. We would urge all parties to maintain restraint while the OSCE initiative is followed through. It is, however, the unfortunate fact that all parties seem to believe that time is on their side. The Karabakhis have established military control over the enclave and occupied large surrounding areas. For their part, some in Azerbaijan argue that once the oil starts flowing they will be able to re-arm and recommence the aggression. We must all agree that such attitudes are dangerously misguided and could lead to the kind of conflagration referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon.
This region ought to be prosperous and peaceful and have many resources and it ought to work together. If the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh were resolved, surely we could begin the new developments; that is, transport, pipelines and other economic developments in the area. There is no doubt that the resumption of hostilities, if it occurred, would be a disaster for all sides. It is therefore absolutely essential that the parties in the region, plus the international community, give very serious consideration indeed to the latest proposals of the Minsk Group and commit themselves to negotiating

171
in good faith. We in the United Kingdom Government trust that they will do that and will give them every help.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.43 to 8.45 p.m.]

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 6, after ("and") insert ("income").
The noble Lord said: As a result of the amendment and the others grouped with it, the question will be related to the income tax-varying powers of a Scottish parliament. I shall be reasonably brief, but the history is interesting.
The final document of the Constitutional Convention was clear on the agreed position between the parties to that convention. I quote from the paragraphs headed, "Secure and stable finances". The document states:
"and upon the limited power of the parliament to vary the basic rate of income tax".—
As regards the variation of income tax, it states:
"The Scottish parliament will have the power to increase or cut the basic rate of income tax for Scottish taxpayers by a maximum of 3p. in the pound. This will give it a greater degree of independence".
I am not entirely sure about that argument, but five lines further up the document states:
"Scotland will no longer be directed by Scottish Office Ministers who lack popular support".
I wonder how that applies, to the current incumbents of the Scottish Office. I would have thought that they had reasonable popular support. But, there you are, the powers that be obviously never thought for a minute that the party opposite would regain power. I thought that myself for a while, but you live and learn.
The basic point is that the Constitutional Convention was perfectly clear: increase or cut the basic rate of income tax for Scottish taxpayers. The Labour Party's manifesto, which about four weeks ago I was advised to keep beside my bed in order to know all the answers to all the questions, varied from that. It stated:
"In the Scottish referendum we will seek separate endorsement of the proposal to create a parliament, and of the proposal to give it defined and limited financial power to vary revenue".
There is a bit of a difference between the position in the document of the Constitutional Convention, which was to vary the basic rate of income tax, and the manifesto of the party opposite, which was simply to vary revenue.
I do not know whether there is any significance in that. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will tell me whether or not there is. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of
172
Kirkford, in his intervention in a previous debate said that he was clear in his mind that if the Scottish parliament attempted to vary any tax other than income tax—I am not sure about that and may return to the question in a moment—that would be outside its powers. It would not be able to do it. If I heard the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, correctly, he made it clear that this proposal was solely about income tax. I see that he agrees with my memory about what he said. The proposal is solely about income tax.
Although this amendment may not he the proper place to explore it, there is a problem concerning the basic rate of income tax. There is a huge difference between varying the basic rate of income tax by plus or minus 3p and varying the 20p or the 40p rates of income tax. I wonder whether one of the problems attendant upon this issue, which I referred to earlier, as reported in The Scotsman by Mr. Peter MacMahon, is that the Treasury may be saying that they might not always have a basic rate of income tax. Given modern technology I have little doubt that it would be possible to have rates of income tax of 10p, 20p, 30p and 40p, let us say. Perhaps the Labour Party will go higher than that but I think they said in their manifesto that they would not. Therefore none of these rates would he defined, as we currently define the 23p rate, as the basic rate of income tax. I do not ask the question with any great expectation of an answer, but it would be interesting if the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, when he answers, would deal with this point. Perhaps, in the interests of open government, he will tell us whether or not this is a bit of a problem.
If you define powers relative to the basic rate of income tax, it becomes rather difficult if at some stage in the future the basic rate of income tax ceases to have any meaning because the rates have been changed. Also, if it is based on the basic rate of income tax it is pretty regressive, because only a small portion of the Scottish electorate will be taxed. Obviously all taxpayers will pay 23 per cent. or above, but the tax will fall most heavily on those who only pay 23 per cent. Those who pay 40 per cent. will not have 3p added to their tax. Therefore, I should like to have confirmation as to the basic rate.
Turning to the purpose of my amendment, during the last debate in answer to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the Government Benches, both Front and Back, said that they were in no doubt that the tax was to be income tax and anybody who suspected that VAT or excise duty would be varied, or perhaps a property tax could be added to the existing council tax, or any other variation, was quite simply wrong and indulging in scare tactics. I would never do that, but I wonder why, if it is as clear cut as I am being told, the matter is not being put clearly.
I cannot believe that my amendment is not perfect so far as the parliamentary draftsmen are concerned. Even I could not get the drafting of an amendment of this degree of simplicity wrong, and so I hope that the noble Lord might remember what he said earlier in the debate and do what he has assured the Committee is the Government's intention: that is, only to have variation on income tax. I see no difficulty at all in the noble Lord accepting my amendment. It would certainly be the most

173
amazingly pleasurable start to my brief time in opposition if I were to have an amendment accepted by the Government at this early stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My concern about income tax is that it is a tax based upon where you are employed, as against, say, council tax, which has to do with one's home. I am not an expert on taxes, and in fact I employ an accountant to look after my tax affairs and have never attempted to do that myself. For example, I was for a while employed by an English company and my tax returns went to the office close to Bishop Auckland in County Durham. What concerns me to some extent is that, if we are talking about income tax, I would have thought it would be fairly easy for many companies to move their registered office to England and perhaps avoid paying some of the tax. Equally, if a person is domiciled in England but working for a Scottish company whose registered office is in Scotland, are they not likely to pay Scottish income tax rather than English income tax? That is one of my concerns. I quite realise there is going to be an income tax.
Also there is the question of corporation tax. Does that come into the calculation? As I understand it, the basic rate of income tax is 23 per cent. whereas corporation tax is about 40 per cent. These are the sorts of problems which concern me as a Scot domiciled in Scotland. I may be wrong, but I have always felt that your tax was based on your place of employment and not necessarily on where you live. That is one of the things that worries me about the tax-varying powers, particularly in connection with income tax.
Lord Sewel: I do not intend to repeat the points I made in reply to the debate on the earlier amendment, but perhaps I could take up a couple of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. Let me make it absolutely clear that we will obviously be producing our details on taxation in the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, makes the point that we may move in time from the concept of a basic rate. I accept that is possible: the concept may actually evolve and disappear. That is why we are taking time to make sure that the White Paper is sufficiently detailed to cover this sort of point and that is why I am not being as detailed and explicit as in some cases the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, wishes me to be at this time. These are matters which need a degree of thought and precision built into them.
As to whether the tax will be raised on the place of work or the place of residence, I have to say that all the thinking is in terms of place of residence. Where you live will actually determine whether you are liable to the additional power of the Parliament. These amendments, like those we discussed earlier, are intended to clarify the nature of the tax-varying powers of the Scottish parliament upon which the electorate will be invited to vote in the referendum. The purpose is to change the reference from tax-varying powers to refer specifically to income tax.
During the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn assured the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, that the only tax-varying power that the
174
Government have in mind for a Scottish parliament relates to income tax and that it would be confined to 3p in the pound. That is the point I tried to make clear in my reply to the earlier debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and also the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, proposed that this should be reflected in the Bill. While I fully understand and appreciate the intention behind these amendments, I do not believe they are necessary. Like the group of amendments that we considered earlier, they fundamentally misunderstand the process whereby our proposals for tax-varying powers will be enacted.
As I have already explained, the proposition to be put to the people in Scotland in the referendum is one of principle and principle alone: should a Scottish parliament have tax-varying powers? In responding to that proposition, I should stress that voters will have the benefit of the White Paper which will set out our proposals fully and clearly, including our detailed proposals on how the tax-varying powers may operate. I believe that that covers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
As I said earlier, the combination of the clear statement of principle in the propositions in the ballot paper, together with a clear reference in the preamble to the Government's proposals (also detailed on the ballot paper) and the details of our proposals as set out in the White Paper is, in our view, a fair and sensible way to proceed.
I return to the point that I made earlier. It is not the detail upon which the people will be voting; it is the principle. Assuming a positive outcome to the referendum—and I do not have the slightest doubt about that—the details of how such a power will operate will be contained in the main devolution legislation. Therefore, there is no possibility of a Scottish parliament somehow abrogating to itself additional powers to tax. Indeed, that will be defined and limited in the Bill which sets up the Scottish parliament. That legislation will be subject to full scrutiny both in this Chamber and another place. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated that his amendment was a relatively small one. However, on this occasion I have to tell him that, although it may be small, it is not quite perfectly formed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The Minister says that the detail is to be spelt out in the White Paper—namely, that such tax-raising or lowering power applies only to income tax. I am sorry, but we have not yet seen the White Paper and indeed we do not know when we shall see it. If my assumption is true, what is the objection to spelling it out in the question in the referendum?
Lord Sewel: I believe I dealt with this point on a number of occasions during the course of today's debate. The Government are approaching the whole issue by putting before the people of Scotland in the referendum points of principle. The point of principle is the power to vary tax; the point of detail, which will be covered in the White Paper and upon which I have given assurances on several occasions this evening, and indeed previously, will relate only to income tax. Our objection

175
to going beyond principle is that once you get into detail you cannot actually stop. As I said, you go through the process of identifying that it is income tax, the fact that it is 3p income tax, the fact that it is related to where a person lives—the point made by the noble Earl opposite—and you go into more and more detail and finish up with a question which runs into paragraphs. That is the problem. Similarly, if you applied the same approach on the question of powers, it would not run into paragraphs; indeed, it would run into pages. Therefore we have deliberately adopted the approach of identifying and focusing on principle, backing that up through reference in the White Paper.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Surely that is the problem with having a referendum on a White Paper before you have legislation. If you had a referendum after the legislation on what was actually in the Bill and had been through Parliament, there would not be such a problem.
Lord Sewel: As I said before, the purpose of the referendum is to demonstrate the degree of support which exists in Scotland and Wales for the Government's proposals. That is the purpose.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am increasingly confused. As the Minister repeatedly says that it is all so simple, the fault is obviously my own. I believe that the amendment expresses precisely what the Government propose to do. Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have said exactly that. However, all the Minister can say now is that it is a point of principle. Why is it a point of principle to ask the Scottish people the misleading question, "Do you agree to tax-varying powers", but not a point of principle to ask them, "Do you agree to varying a power to vary income tax"? I cannot see why one is a point of principle and not the other.
As I am on my feet, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clear up a matter where, again, I have been left confused. I refer to the previous debate. What would be the financial effect on Scotland of reducing taxation? The noble Lord said that if you reduced taxation by, say, 3p on the basic rate, that would cost £450 million. Therefore, there will be that amount less to spend on the services. However, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, went further and said, as I understand it, that the Barnett formula, which I think we ought to call the Barnett-Rees formula, the block grant, would be reduced by an equivalent amount which seems to me to amount to £900,000. I apologise if I have misunderstood and I shall gladly give way.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that we may later want to move from the basic rate, but there is nothing in the amendment about the basic rate; it is merely about income tax. If the real answer is, "We don't intend to accept any amendments because we don't want the Bill to go back to the other place", it
176
would be better if the noble Lord would say so. We could then save our breath to cool our porridge. I hope that that idiom will appeal to the noble Lord.
Lord Sewel: The Government will look upon all amendments. If, in our view, certain amendments add to and improve the Bill, we will accept them and then, by definition, they will have to return to the other place for consideration. There is no attempt to confine consideration in this Chamber to prevent amendments being moved and accepted; indeed, that would be most improper. If they are amendments which improve the Bill, they will have our support in this Chamber and they will automatically go to the other place.
I deeply regret that I have so far failed to satisfy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I have tried to satisfy him. He made two points, of which one escapes me. However, he asked what would happen if the Scottish parliament reduces taxation. I tried to spell that out in the debate on the previous amendment. If the parliament decreases the tax, clearly the Inland Revenue's tax take will be reduced, and, to reflect this, the overall level of resources passed to the Scottish parliament through the block and formula approach will have to be reduced by a similar amount. I hope that that deals with the issue.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This has been an interesting short debate. However, I did not think it would be as long as it has been. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, put her finger on the matter when she said that if we had had the referendum after the Bill had been enacted we would not be having this trouble with these questions. I hope that the Government are not blaming anyone for having to go into these details, because this is a hole of their own making. They did not need to go down this road.
It seems to me that the principal question is the first one. I should have thought one could argue that the second question is a detail. It is just as much a detail as the matter of how the block grant will be arranged, or the matter of the voting arrangements for the parliament. The Government have got themselves into this trouble because they have asked this second question. I am sorry that the Minister has to defend the pretty indefensible, but that is the simple fact of the matter.
Having started to ask the question, we are entitled—as are the Scottish people—to ask for absolute clarity. If the noble Lord is telling me—as he is again—that this measure will concern only income tax, I fail to understand why that cannot be included in the question. It does not add too many words—just one word—it does not make it more complicated; it simply makes it clearer. I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. He could have accepted this amendment and it would have helped to clarify the situation. However, I shall read what we said in this debate and what we said in the debate before supper. I may return to this issue at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("tax-varying powers") and insert ("power to raise or lower taxes").
The noble Earl said: At last I come to my amendment, which is grouped with that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I fully understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that it was important to break for supper rather than discuss this amendment at an earlier point.
I move my amendment despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, dealt with it generally when dealing with the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. He made it clear that he felt the issue to be one of principle. I understand that the Scottish parliament should have revenue raising powers. But, if that is so, I wonder why we do not make that clearer. I do not like the words "tax-varying powers". The noble Lord also said that in practice the only thing that would occur would be a 3 per cent. variation in income tax. If that is firmly the view of the Government, why do they not say so?
Given that there must be flexibility on all these matters, I should have hoped that the Government would consider my amendment which instead of using the words "tax-varying powers"—which I think can mean all things to all men—would make it quite clear that what is proposed is to have powers to raise or lower taxes. Having listened to this debate I have come to the conclusion that to ask the Government to accept the words "or lower taxes" is perhaps wrong. My reason for saying that is that I have heard that, if the parliament lowers taxes, all that will happen is that the block grant will be reduced by the same amount. We are being asked, "Do you agree to raise taxes?" because lowering them means nothing.
My second point arises from what I have heard in this debate and outside the Chamber. Are we wise to have the second question at this time? In its first life, the Parliament at Westminster will have many issues to debate which will take up all its time. Would it not be better to defer the question of the principle on tax-raising powers to a later stage, to a second Parliament? There is nothing to stop the Government at that time, if they wish and are still in power, to have a second referendum directed to this all-important point of principle: is the Scottish parliament in principle to have revenue-raising powers? I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: As my name is to the amendment, perhaps I may say that, although I strongly agree with the objectives of my noble friend Lord Perth, I should prefer the amendment to refer to the power to raise income tax. My noble friend's point about lowering tax is valid. Therefore I shall not comment on it. But the fact that it is income tax which is involved should be spelt out.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: I am at some loss. I have to say with the utmost respect to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that I believe I have covered these points in some detail and may be in danger of losing the attention of the Committee if I seek to rehearse the arguments yet again.
The Earl of Perth: I shall not divide the Chamber on the issue at this rather late hour. It is true that it has
178
been covered. However, I hope that all Members of the Committee will read Hansard and note what is in my opinion an unsatisfactory answer to my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("Parliament") and insert ("Assembly").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will be pleased to know that the amendments in the group are identical. They are simple and brief. Their significance is in inverse proportion to their length.
The issue is this. What are we being invited to bring into being? Perhaps I may revert to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who I see is once again in his seat. The issue is germane to the Bill. What we are discussing are the words on the face of the ballot paper, which I submit are misleading. The reason for the large group of amendments is simple. In order to have consistency throughout the Bill we need to make the amendment in a series of different places.
The argument for this amendment has already been put forward on a number of occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, made it earlier in the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, made similar points, as have other Members of the Committee. What will be the body that it is suggested that we bring into being? Is it actually a parliament?
I was brought up to be a simple, straightforward countryman. I suspect that my view of Parliament is that held by many people across the length and breadth of this land. In saying that, I do not refer just to England but to Scotland, Wales and that part of Ireland which is appropriate; and it may even be that the Irish in the rest of Ireland hold a similar view. The English Parliament is rather special and rather particular. It is known as the Mother of Parliaments. It has been the basis on which democracy has been spread across the face of the globe in the past 50 years. Where democracy works successfully, it is where it closely parallels the organisation that we have in this country. The first thing we have is a bicameral organisation. I shall not get into a debate as to which House within the bicameral organisation is supreme and which superior. I think we know the answer: one is superior and the other supreme.
Having said that, Parliament works because it is democratic. It works because the electors, the elected representatives who are their servants and their elected representatives choose a government. I know that we have a party system which corrupts that, but it is what is supposed to happen. The Government are the servant of Parliament, the servant of the whole of Parliament, not exclusively of the elected representatives. Still less is the relationship the other way round, which has increasingly been the trend of modern times and which is regrettable. That is what I and the majority of people understand to be a parliament. But it is not what we are bringing into being. Whatever else it may be, it is not that. It is also the international perception of the best way of constructing a parliament. For that reason, I do not like the wording that we have.
Of course, it could be argued that there is a difference between what is happening in Scotland and what is happening in Wales. It could be argued that the Scottish assembly—I would prefer that word, as my amendment suggests—will have legislative powers. I have had a lot to do with local government which can bring in by-laws; so local government—if that is a definition—is, in a sense, a parliamentary form, but it does not bear the word "parliament" and it works extremely well without it.
Exactly the same point could be made with regard to tax-raising powers. Local government used to have far greater tax-raising powers, only constrained by the capping regime. If there is any local authority left in this country which is not constrained by the capping regime, such authorities have greater freedom of power over taxation than it is suggested the new body for Scotland will have.
So I seriously suggest that to put on the face of the ballot paper that a Scottish parliament is being created is misleading. I hope that the Government will consider the amendment seriously. I am quite happy to relieve the Minister of one burden in his reply by saying that at this stage the amendment is a probing amendment. I look forward to hearing what is said this evening on the subject. When I have read it all and considered the matter further, it is only fair to say that I may wish to bring it back. But at the moment it is a probing amendment.
Lord Hughes: Before the noble Lord concludes, more than once he referred to the "English Parliament" instead of the "UK Parliament". Part of the trouble in Scotland is that too many people consider that the UK Parliament acts as if it were an English Parliament.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I stand corrected and regret my error. Of course I meant to refer to the United Kingdom Parliament. If I inadvertently gave the wrong impression, I am happy to withdraw the phrase and put the correct one in place. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I do not find myself in agreement with the amendments. I was slightly puzzled by something that was said in the introduction to the amendments. I may be mistaken but I understood the noble Lord to say that a bicameral situation was essential for a democratic parliament. I know many countries all over northern Europe where there are perfectly good democratic parliaments. None has a bicameral parliament. I am thinking of all the Nordic countries, none of which has a bicameral arrangement. So I do not think that that is an essential element for a democratic parliament. Let us get that out of the way, to start with.
As regards substituting the word "assembly" for "parliament", I shall be brief because it is late. There are two powerful reasons for the proposal. The kind of powers we plan to give to the Scottish parliament make it absolutely appropriate that we use the word "parliament" and not "assembly". It is important to do so for the Scottish structure, in order to differentiate it from the Welsh assembly which, as the noble Lord
180
pointed out, has quite different powers. So it is very different. They are two different words for two quite different structures. That is the first point.
The second point is that it is quite important to get everybody's mind—including the minds of noble Lords in this Chamber and those in another place as well as the minds of the people in Scotland and Wales—off 1979. It was a Scottish assembly then. This is a very different animal that is proposed and it deserves a different name. I see nothing wrong with this body being called a Scottish parliament and I see everything wrong with it being called a Scottish assembly.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, need not be ashamed of referring to the "English" Parliament. Nearly all the English do it. It is a little weakness that they have. They cannot help it. I do not object to it. They are entitled to their little delusions. But it does raise the hackles of a number of Scots and it is unfortunate. It gives rise to much of the separatism in the Scottish National Party. So I have long been for a Scottish parliament. I have always wanted it to be a Scottish parliament; "assembly" does not sound right.
Indeed, for years the Stormont Parliament, which was technically very efficient, was called a parliament. There is a precedent. I do not believe that the name raises any trouble. I am surprised that a man of the noble Lord's perception should not see that it is only right and proper that we should have a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly, if they will accept it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I missed the first minute of my noble friend's speech, for which I apologise to the Committee. This is quite an important matter. People in Scotland have been expecting this body to be called the Scots parliament through the whole story of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It is the name that they are expecting. What they do not yet understand and must understand before they vote is the relationship of the Scots parliament to the United Kingdom Parliament. That will be very important indeed; otherwise, there will be great disillusionment later on.
That relationship was very well expressed, as my noble friend said, by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. I hope that we shall see that in black and white in some of the public print before too long. It will help everybody to understand that relationship. So long as we have that, I personally do not think that the name matters.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is quite right about this matter. The problem with the word "assembly" is "What does it actually mean?". I think that it means a gathering. It does not have any connotations of a legislative body so far as I know. Historically, it has connotations of social gatherings—the kind of gatherings that took place in the Assembly Rooms in Edinburgh and in various other towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom in the 18th and 19th centuries. So, we must be careful about this matter.

181
At the same time, I have reservations about "parliament". After all, "parliament", unless it is a sovereign parliament, seems a bit misleading too. I am in rather a difficulty here.
Earl Russell: The social context to which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, alludes is not quite the right one. In Scottish history the word "assembly" normally means the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Applying it to the body we now propose is about as appropriate as calling the body wherein we are now sitting a senate.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I take the point. But there are other connotations as well, if the noble Earl will forgive me.
Lord Hughes: On a more trivial point, the word "assembly" occurs in many parts of Scotland in towns and cities. There are places called "assembly rooms" and that has nothing to do with parliament.
The Earl of Perth: My memory may be wrong, but when in 1979 we held a referendum on devolution, it was in relation to an assembly and to a parliament. There is a lot of merit in it. The Church of Scotland assembly has, in relation to its duties, legislative powers. I would have hoped that we would apply the same distinction, using the word "assembly" rather than "parliament" which will be confused in many people's minds with the British Parliament.
Lord Kennet: I cannot forbear from pointing out that the word "assembly" is the one used by the French equivalent of the House of Commons. The lower House of their parliament is the National Assembly.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: Perhaps I can cap that. Before the war it was called the Chamber of Deputies. Does it matter what we call it? We know what it is.
Lord Sewel: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for the positive and genuinely constructive and conciliatory way in which he moved his amendment. I also hope that, perhaps having heard from a number of Members throughout the Chamber, he will reflect that the term "assembly" may not be the most appropriate term to apply to the body we have in mind.
Basically, the argument is simply that we will be setting up a legislature. By definition it will have law-making powers. We also intend for it to have—I must be extremely careful in this regard—tax-varying powers as well. When we put the two together we get something which justifies the description of a "parliament". We cannot say that the law-making powers of local government to enact by-laws come close to the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament which will be able to legislate across a wide range of subjects. It is not a runner to make that sort of comparison.
182
In this context it is important to look back to the Scottish assembly proposals in 1979. Our new proposals differ significantly from the proposals that were made at that time and we should rightly seek to differentiate that model of the Scottish assembly from what we now see as a Scottish parliament. It will have much greater powers across a broader range of subjects and take on the tax-varying power as well.
It is also appropriate to look across to the proposals for Wales where there is not a law-making function. That is why the term "assembly" is used there and the term "parliament" used for the Scottish proposals. It is wrong to force a common template—a common nomenclature—on these bodies. We must identify what is the most appropriate way of differentiating and describing the various bodies that we propose to set up. The idea of a Welsh assembly is a good one. The idea of a Scottish parliament is equally sound and I hope that, having heard the debate, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say what will happen if the Scottish people vote yes to the first question and no to the second? That will leave the whole issue of assembly versus parliament in the melting pot.
Lord Sewel: That is the real hypothetical question. I think I am just about wise enough to know not to answer hypothetical questions. Perhaps I may say that I do not for one moment anticipate the Scottish people voting anything other than "yes, yes".
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am not really surprised at the response I have received. Perhaps I may use one old saying: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", or so I am told. The difficulty in this situation is that, as so many speakers have already said this evening, we do not know whether we are looking at a rose or at something else. We do not have the substantive legislation that is required for us to have that knowledge. I am quite happy at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("as set out in a White Paper to be published and debated by each House of Parliament not less than six weeks before such a referendum").
The noble Lord said: This amendment once again addresses the question of the White Paper, on which the Government have rested much of their case against the amendments we have bought forward today—largely, "Wait until you receive the White Paper, all will be revealed and then there will be no problem, and the people of Scotland and Wales will be able to vote in the knowledge that all the i's have been dotted and the t's crossed". If all the i's had been dotted and the t's crossed I would have preferred to see a Bill, even a draft Bill, but I suppose the best we shall get is a White Paper.
Earlier today we discussed the question of fixing the date of 2nd October. Then I discovered—and entirely understood why we could not have that—that the date was in the middle of the Labour Party conference. However, approaching the matter from a slightly different direction, I think it is important that we say something about the distance there ought to be between the production of the White Paper, and more particularly the debate on the White Paper in both Houses, and the referendum itself.
I have no less an authority than the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, who, in the Second Reading debate, speaking, I suppose, for the Government from the Back Benches, said that the White Papers, with their detailed proposals, would be published before the House rose for the Summer Recess and that there would be plenty of time for us to have debates. I am delighted to hear that. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has said the same.
It is one thing for us to have debate but I think there has to be debate in Scotland. I know I shall be told that there has been debate for 18 years. I beg to differ on that. There has been debate in certain newspapers and among certain groups but I have never found this to be "the" topic of conversation in the hostelries, restaurants and other meeting places of the public. It certainly is not the topic of conversation one meets on the Ibrox stands on a Saturday. I do not actually think the Scottish public spend most of their waking hours discussing whether or not they will have a Scottish parliament.
Lord Sewel: Does the noble Lord agree that one sign of the active debate that has occurred in Scotland over the past 20 years is the fact that so many of his friends have changed their minds?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure to which of my friends from 1979 the noble Lord is referring. But I can think of one or two. I did not want to get into this but I have to say that I spent many happy evenings on the referendum campaign with a certain Mr. Brian Wilson. We were not debating against each other; we were actually on the same side—very clearly on the same side. The noble Lord comes from Aberdeen. I may be wrong but I think I am right in saying that the then Member for Aberdeen, North was not exactly too keen on the devolution proposal in 1979. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, told me that I must not revisit 1979. I hope she will not blame me for being tempted to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.
In this debate I shall refer to the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, which I mentioned earlier. I quote from paragraph 85 of its report:
"The difficulty with a pre-legislative referendum is that important aspects of the issue put to the electorate might be changed during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. Referendums on complex measures which Parliament would wish to debate in detail—for example, the pre-legislative referendums relating to devolution in Scotland and Wales—could make it hard to ensure that the electorate knew what it was voting for. One means of ensuring that the electorate was aware of the issues involved would be through the publication of a White Paper. This would enable the Government to
184
set out the detail and the policy implications of the Bill to be presented to Parliament. A draft Bill could also be published and laid before Parliament".
I agree with that. I thought that we were going to have a draft Bill. The Prime Minister said that, but he appears to have retreated from that statement. We know that we are going to have a White Paper. I hope that the noble Lord will clarify one thing about it. After the first debate some of my noble friends and I had an argument about what the noble Lord said. I thought he said that he would announce the date of publication of the White Paper at Report stage. One of my noble friends thought that he said that it would be published by Report stage. I would be grateful for clarification. If I am right and the date is to be announced at Report stage, that means that the White Paper is not going to be published until towards the end of July at the earliest. Then this House and the other place will have to sit a week later, and perhaps into August, to debate both White Papers, because it is not just the Scottish one but the Welsh White Paper as well.
When that is finished we then have August. I have already explained about that and I am not going over it again. We then go from August into September. It is quite important. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out, the White Papers on devolution for Scotland and Wales are not on the lists of summer reading. I suspect that they may not be currently on the lists, but they will have to be for those people who are interested and indeed all of those who will be asked to vote.
I accept that 2nd October would take us well beyond six weeks. I am trying to avoid the Government coming to Report stage and giving the date of the referendum, which is what I understand they intend to do at that stage, and giving us only four to five weeks—it may be less—in order to digest the White Papers. That is essentially why I have tabled this amendment. It is time we had some kind of timetable about this matter.
My amendment simply means that if we have to debate in the first week of August, then the Government can have their referendum, if my diary count is right, about 11th September. If we cannot have the debate until the second week of August, then we can have the referendum on 18th September. I certainly do not want a debate in the second week of August and the referendum on 4th September. That would be quite wrong and there is no need for that kind of speed. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me with the timings of the referendum and the White Paper and will be able reassure me. I will be happy with his assurance that the Scottish people will have at least six weeks between the debate and the referendum to consider these issues. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: For a matter of such importance as a referendum on a serious constitutional change, six weeks seems to me to be a very short time for the voters to consider what they are voting on. That is the absolute minimum of time. I would have preferred the people to have had three months. What is all the hurry about? The Government have been elected for five years. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the

185
Opposition he talked himself into a corner by promising the Scots a devolved parliament within the first year of government. Now he is in a corner and cannot get out of it without losing face. But I am very sorry. This is far too important a matter to be rushed through in a hurry like this. As I say, the Government have five years to implement their manifesto commitments. What on earth is all the rush about?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Palmer: I too would like to echo the comments of my noble friend Lady Saltoun. One only has to think back and to look at the experience of the last government, who made the crushing mistake with the poll tax by introducing it into Scotland as an experiment, then introducing it into England and Wales and then abandoning the whole thing. I urge the Government most strongly just to reflect on the previous government's mistakes and not rush things.
Lord Hughes: At a general election, it is usual that the election is held three, or not more than four, weeks after the announcement of the dissolution of Parliament. The people of the country have to consider not just one issue, as is the position with this referendum, but a whole variety of things which a government may do.
This year, the previous Prime Minister departed from the normal procedure and we had an election campaign which ran for six weeks. By the end of that time, a great part of the population of the country was bored stiff and most people were not listening to the election broadcasts which then took place. Six weeks for a general election proved to be too long, and I am quite sure it will be too long in relation to this referendum.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: If I might intervene, I think this is a rather more important matter even than a general election.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he think that his argument would apply to a general election held on, for example, 4th September with a campaign in August?
Earl Russell: This amendment has a certain plausibility about it. I am sure that, if the Government can, they will do what this amendment asks. It does not therefore follow that it is appropriate to embody it in primary legislation as I learnt all the way through my first parliament and for much of my second.
That is the case made so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his report on the drafting of legislation. The legislator cannot possibly foresee all details. The more detail you put into primary legislation the more repealing legislation will be needed and the more cluttered parliamentary time becomes.
I remember one particular occasion when I moved such an amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, took me to pieces like a clock and told me that it would be most improper to have any such thing in primary legislation. I replied to him that I agreed with him entirely had I ever intended to press the amendment to
186
a Division. I had moved the amendment in order to obtain an assurance, which I received; and I was happy to withdraw it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, may be about to tell us the same thing.
Lord Hughes: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, invited me to answer a question. If there were to be a vote on 4th September and information on 15th August, he would be perfectly correct. But I can see nothing wrong if it is between 4th August and 4th September.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This is a very important amendment. I rather agree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that, if anything, six weeks is too short. I do not believe that it is correct to compare this with a general election campaign.
We are now setting up a referendum, the answers to which will not follow party lines. It will be a cross-party issue. There are four options for the way one votes. As my noble friend Lord Mackay said earlier. a number of campaigns will be running which say different things. People must sort out not only what are the proposals but which combination of votes they wish to cast. I do not know yet how I shall vote. I doubt that I shall vote "Yes, yes", but there is the option of "No. no" or "No, yes", which are both valid ways to vote in my view. I am increasingly certain that I want to say "Yes" to the second question. That is a complicated process through which people must go. It will lead to a good deal of dissatisfaction because for half of the time people will be on holiday. In my view, this has nothing whatever to do with an attempt to frustrate the Bill or referendum. If we are to have a referendum it must be fair and clear to people what they are doing. We must be satisfied that the outcome is what the people of Scotland want.
I am sorry that the Government appear to be so determined in this matter. I do not know whether the Front Bench has been instructed not to give way on anything. I said at Second Reading that I thought that with no proper opposition in another place Ministers there would be very interested in the arguments deployed in this House. I hope that that is so. This is one of those matters on which I believe the Government should think again.
Lord Campbell of Croy: As I indicated to the Committee earlier, 19 years ago I was successful in getting the Government to accept that there should be a period of six weeks between the setting of the date for polling day and the statutory instrument that had to pass through both Houses of Parliament. That statutory instrument, which I quoted earlier today, was discussed in your Lordships' House on 5th December. Polling day was on 1st March. Therefore, because the statutory instrument already had the date of 1st March in it one was aware of the date three months beforehand.
I was then leading on the Bill from the Opposition Front Bench, having been Secretary of State for Scotland for four years some time before that. I confess that in these matters I am antediluvian. Then we did not worry about wintry conditions. In the Second Reading debate quite a number of comments were made—I did not interrupt anyone at that time because it was not

187
necessary to do so—about how difficult conditions were in Scotland in January and March. On the last occasion the campaign was held in January and February. The campaign started in January and polling day was on 1st March. My home is just beyond the Cairngorms.
Comments were made in particular by the Liberal Democrat Benches about ice and snow. That made no difference to us at all. We take ice and snow as a matter of course in northern Scotland. We were quite happy to have a longer period in order to consider the questions in the then referendum. I was successful in obtaining at least six weeks last time. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is not here, because he was the very co-operative Minister of State at the time who accepted our suggestions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will do the same today. Both come from Aberdeen. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was Lord Provost of Aberdeen when I was Secretary of State. Therefore, I know him very well. At that time the amendment was accepted. We knew that we would have more than six weeks. I must support my noble friend on this amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I hesitate to contradict the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He does not live in an area of ice and snow. He lives in the most favoured part of Scotland where the Gulf Stream comes pouring in. Had he represented Caithness and Sutherland he would have had a very different idea of ice and snow.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I do not live on the west coast of Scotland where the Gulf Stream permits palm trees to grow. I live by the Moray Firth just beyond the Cairngorms which in winter is probably one of the coldest areas of Scotland.
The Earl of Northesk: I infer from comments made by noble Lords opposite that the presumption against my noble friend's amendment is that six weeks of campaigning will be too long. However, as I understand it this amendment seeks a six-month interval between publication and debate of the White Papers in this House and another place and the referendums. The presumption therefore that there will be a six-week campaign is wholly erroneous. The campaign for a yes or no vote need only take three weeks irrespective of what my noble friend's amendment seeks to deliver.
Lord Rees-Mogg: I support the amendment. Amendment No. 29, which will not come up tonight but which is a similar amendment in respect of Wales, has even greater strength than this amendment because the Welsh assembly is less defined in people's minds than the proposal for a Scottish parliament. If the Government were to feel that they could not resist
188
Amendment No. 29, it would be right for them to accept this amendment or at least to give an assurance on the timetable equivalent to the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that in his part of Scotland they took ice in their stride. I always thought that they took ice in the whisky, but there we are.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Not in Scotland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As soon as I said that, I realised my error. I could feel the boomerang winging its way around and hitting me on the back of the head. I sympathise with the reasonable requirement that there should be a proper opportunity for consideration and debate. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said some weeks ago that there would be an opportunity to debate the White Papers in this place and in another place before the Recess. My noble friend Lord Sewel has repeated that assurance. I have repeated it. That is our commitment.
What my noble friend Lord Sewel said on the occasion referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was:
"Hopefully by Report. on the currently envisaged timetable, the Government will inform noble Lords about proposed dates for publishing the White Papers and holding the referendums".
That is still our hope. I cannot guarantee any specific time. As soon as the dates of the White Paper and the projected dates for holding the referendums are definitively known to us, we shall notify Members of this place. I cannot go further than that tonight. It is idle to pretend that I can. There is no suggestion that either my noble friend Lord Sewel or I are under instructions to give nothing away.
We recognise the legitimate interest in having an informed debate. I am content, of course, to take into account the advice given by the noble Lord to reflect on the previous government's mistakes, but that would be a long period of reflection indeed. I repeat what has already been said: when we know the dates positively, we shall return to this place with the dates for the publication of the two White Papers, the proposed dates for the referendums, and, when the usual channels have agreed, the dates for the debates on the White Papers in this place.
Lord Gray of Contin: I had not intended to intervene at this stage, because I have followed the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to exercise discipline. I have exercised that discipline of silence for the whole of the afternoon. I have not heard a more inadequate reply to any debate than the one to which we have just listened. It is appalling. The Government have brought all this on their own heads. If the Government had done as any normal government would have done, and published their White Paper in adequate time so that it could have been studied and debated, we would not find ourselves in the situation in which we are tonight.

189
We have been accused of deviating from the point of various amendments. That is no wonder, because we just do not have the details that should be available to us from the White Paper. Now we are given vague information about the publication of the White Paper, which will arrive at a most inopportune time: the end of the parliamentary year when everyone is preparing to go away, when families are ready for holidays, when all the various bodies throughout Scotland which would wish to consider the matter carefully are facing the same problem of staff holidays, people unavailable to give opinions and everything else, and now we are told that the date of the referendum will come, presumably, and, we suspect, in September. That is a useless month for such an event. People will be on holiday and will be unable to vote. The whole exercise is a muddle. On top of that, we are faced with a situation in which the Bill was treated with contempt in another place. It was rushed through as though there was some desperate urgency about it. In this House, if we give it the due care and attention that is justified we shall be accused of time wasting. No doubt that would be used at some future time as ammunition to fire at us for trying to get at the Government. In fact, the Government should be applauding the fact that this Chamber is prepared to give the Bill consideration instead of suggesting that time wasting and other exercises have been taking place.
I hope that in future amendments which are tabled and carefully considered in this Chamber will be appreciated by the other side who will realise that we are only doing the duty expected of us. I hope that we can hear something more constructive from the Government. I have sympathy with the Ministers on the Front Bench. They are having to carry the can for what was not done by their counterparts in another place. The Bill needs careful scrutiny in this House.
Perhaps some of the arguments that have been put forward are more suited to the Bill which will follow. My colleagues and others on this side of the Committee may have deviated slightly from the purpose of the Bill because the information is not available and the White Paper has not been produced. I hope that the Government will take a little heart from the fact that they can be constructive by listening to what we have to say.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: One always wants to be constructive in listening to what anyone says. The noble Lord said that another place had treated these matters with contempt. Having studied the number of amendments and their content, I am obliged to agree. It was also said by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that a vague date was being put forward. I have been as specific as I can, which is to reiterate the assurance given weeks ago by the Lord Privy Seal that there would he an opportunity for your Lordships' House to debate the White Paper before the Summer Recess. I am not intending to try to deceive anyone in your Lordships' House. I am giving your Lordships the information at my disposal, which I believe to be my duty.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps I may make a further comment. I would not wish the noble Lord to believe
190
that I had suggested he was trying to deceive the House in any way. That certainly was not my intention. I was sympathising with him in the hopeless task he had been given by his colleagues in another place. However, I believe that as regards this House the details must not be overlooked. Every detail of this Bill must be carefully examined because the legislation was not carefully examined elsewhere. It is simply not good enough for the noble Lord to criticise amendments which were tabled. Many of them were not considered, so there was no question of their being answered.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Lord, Lord Gray, sits down, he said one thing which surprised me greatly. He said that normal governments allow adequate time. Can he tell me when was the last normal government?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Accusations of time wasting have been bandied about. It may interest the House to know that out of 90 amendments on the Marshalled List we are in the process of discussing the 43rd. In view of the fact that this is the first day of three, we are not doing too badly.
Lord Sewel: Before the noble Lady sits down, perhaps I may make it clear that neither I nor my noble friends have made any accusation about time-wasting in the Chamber this evening.
Lord Palmer: Further to my earlier comments, could Her Majesty's Government please tell us what is the desperate urgency about rushing all this legislation through before the Summer Recess? We do not even yet know when the Summer Recess is due to take place. Bearing in mind that many of us live in Scotland and the Scottish schools go back in the middle of August, some Members of Parliament, and certainly some Members of this House, will have no holidays with their children whatsoever.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did not think I was going to get a debate like this when I introduced my modest amendment; nor indeed did I think that I was going to get quite the audience I have got. I have not seen so many Government Ministers in the Chamber since we started and I am delighted to see that they have arrived at this time of night. I am hugely tempted to spend an hour or two reminding them—because they do not need a lesson—of how able they were in Opposition. They were able enough in Opposition to keep me at the Dispatch Box for many hours. However, perhaps the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, is not here reduces the temptation. It was she and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who taught me how to deal with opposition.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Gray. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would have considered replies of the shortness we have had today from government ministers pretty inadequate if I had attempted to use them in all the various pieces of legislation I took through your Lordships' House. However, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for clarifying one point.

191
As I said, a noble friend and I were disputing what his noble friend Lord Sewel had actually said. I am now clear that we shall not actually receive the White Paper by Report stage. When we reach Report stage we shall be given the date of the White Paper and the date of the referendum. That is what I had thought but I was beginning to doubt it, and indeed one of my noble friends suggested otherwise.
That means, I suspect, that the media are quite wrong when they suggest that we shall have the referendum on 4th September and it means, although I did not see it myself, that the Welsh Secretary made a slip of the tongue on television on Sunday when he said that we would see the White Paper in a fortnight. I now accept what has been said. That is fine as far as it goes, but the Minister did not address my amendment. The noble Earl rightly pointed out to me that this was a typical probing amendment of the kind that he used against me on many occasions just to get an assurance from the Minister, and then he would withdraw such an amendment. That was entirely my intention: that I would get some assurances from the Minister about the time and then I would withdraw the amendment, having had those assurances on the record.
Actually the amendment was not even addressed. The question of how much time there might be between the referendum being published and debated and the date of the referendum itself was not addressed. Perhaps I might invite either of the Ministers to give us some kind of assurance that no fewer than six weeks will elapse between this House and the other place debating the
192
White Paper and the date of the referendum itself. Clearly I am not going to get any such assurance. I imagine that Members of the other place, especially Scottish Members, might not be too pleased to know that they are likely to be held here well into August to debate this White Paper, and miss out on the school holidays. I remember them being very annoyed in the early 1980s when I was a humble Back-Bencher in the other place and the Government of which I was a member kept us a little into August—not far into August—and we were all annoyed about that—not just the members of the Labour Party. We tried to persuade the Government, with some success, that they should not repeat that offence. I fear that the offence is going to be repeated very considerably this year.
Clearly I am not going to get answers to my questions. Neither of the noble Ministers are prepared to give me any kind of assurances or even to address the question of the interval between the two events. I may come back to this later. In the meantime, with a good deal of annoyance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

  Public Record Office: Performance Targets
  Public Record Office: Performance Targets
  Partnership in the Workplace
  Partnership in the Workplace
  Housing Benefit: Local Reference Rent
  Housing Benefit: Local Reference Rent
  Social Security Benefit Disentitlement
  Social Security Benefit Disentitlement
  Youth Training Allowances: Ministerial Responsibility
  Youth Training Allowances: Ministerial Responsibility
  Police Information Technology Organisation
  Police Information Technology Organisation
  Charity Commission Inquiries: Publication of Reports
  Charity Commission Inquiries: Publication of Reports
  Crime Projections
  Crime Projections
  Home Office Legal Costs
  Home Office Legal Costs
  Train Passenger Congestion Data: Publication
  Train Passenger Congestion Data: Publication
  NHS Quality and Effectiveness Measures
  NHS Quality and Effectiveness Measures
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tobacco Advertising
  Cancer Surgery
  Cancer Surgery
  Osteoporosis
  Osteoporosis
  Gastric Cancer, Ulceration and Bleeding
  Gastric Cancer, Ulceration and Bleeding
  BSE and New Variant CJD
  BSE and New Variant CJD
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Beaufort's Dyke: Radioactive Waste
  Beaufort's Dyke: Radioactive Waste
  Northern Ireland: Unresolved Planning Cases
  Northern Ireland: Unresolved Planning Cases
  Northern Ireland: Sunday Shopping
  Northern Ireland: Sunday Shopping
  Defence Diversification Agency
  Defence Diversification Agency
  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Armed Forces: 1997 Pay Award
  Armed Forces: 1997 Pay Award
  Armed Forces Pay and Allowance Structures
  Armed Forces Pay and Allowance Structures
  Armed Forces and Homosexuals: Policy
  Armed Forces and Homosexuals: Policy
  Turkish Armed Forces: UK Training Assistance
  Turkish Armed Forces: UK Training Assistance
  NATO Command Structure
  NATO Command Structure
  Ballistic Missile Defence: US/UK Collaboration
  Ballistic Missile Defence: US/UK Collaboration