Sitting of 22 July 1997

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

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 29 July.

  LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 29 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    General Practitioner Service
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the general practitioner service. [7942]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We have one of the finest family doctor services in the world, largely thanks to the professionalism and commitment of our general practitioners and the members of their primary health care teams.
    Where people do not have access to the range and high quality of services that they deserve, we shall work with primary care professionals to explore better means of delivering services. We shall also rid the NHS of the excessive bureaucratic demands and inequities of the internal market.
    Mrs. Winterton: I recognise that there have been some minor difficulties with GP fundholding, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the system has put general practitioners on a par with consultants and enabled them better to reflect the clinical needs of their patients? What consultations have taken place already about the change of policy? Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will consult family doctors further to ensure that the benefits of the system are not discarded—in other words, that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water?
    Mr. Milburn: I have to tell the hon. Lady that there are more than minor problems with the GP fundholding system. Of course I recognise the importance of the need for GPs and other primary care professionals to play
    740
    a leading role in the commissioning of health care, but the hon. Lady and her party must acknowledge the fact that GP fundholding has brought with it a two-tier system of health care, which runs against the grain of the principles of the national health service, as well as being bureaucratic and costly.
    As for consultation, we are prepared to consult all primary care professional organisations. I am pleased to say that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and other organisations have acknowledged and supported the announcement that the Government made last week.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the general practitioner service is greatly enhanced by the services of health visitors, school nurses and the chiropodists who give treatment to the elderly? Does he acknowledge the distress caused in Cambridgeshire by the cuts imposed on those services by the Cambridge and Huntingdon health commission?
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns, and those of other hon. Members, about the cuts in primary and community care services. Of course that is an issue that we shall have to monitor closely. One of the initiatives that we have already undertaken is the piloting of new arrangements for the delivery of personal medical services that will better integrate GPs and other primary care professionals in future, so as to ensure better delivery of those services.

    Patient Care
    Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of national health service staff are directly involved in patient care. [7943]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Just under two thirds of national health service staff in England in 1996 were classified as direct care staff. That figure is based on the definition used by the previous Government, which included some staff who were not directly involved in patient care and excluded some staff who were.
    Mr. Gibb: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proportion of NHS staff directly involved in patient care increased from 60 per cent. in 1981 to nearly two thirds—the figure that he has just given me—under the Conservative Government? What will his target be for five years' time?
    Mr. Dobson: As usual, the statistics produced by Tory central office do not compare like with like. There are now more administrative staff in the health service than ever. There was a 44 per cent. increase between 1986 and 1995, and between 1990 and 1996 the wage bill for administrative staff rose by £700 million. That may be one explanation of why the hon. Gentleman's local health authority entered this year—under the previous Government—£2.1 million in debt.
    Mr. Burden: I agree with my right hon. Friend that one of the worst aspects of the previous Government's health reforms was the bureaucratisation of the health service; far too few staff were engaged in direct patient

    741
    care and it is a considerable tribute to them that they have none the less been able to cope and provide an excellent service. Will he comment on the fact that, despite those efforts, staff have all too often to work in outdated hospitals and unsatisfactory environments? That problem, in Birmingham and elsewhere, was not addressed by the previous Government. Will he ensure that the present Government address it?
    Mr. Dobson: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Besides increasing the number of staff exclusively involved in paperwork, the previous Government's reforms massively increased the time that doctors, nurses and other professionals had to devote to paperwork to feed the general bureaucratic system.
    Mr. Brake: Is the Secretary of State aware that nurses at the accident and emergency unit at St. Helier hospital in Carshalton, who are directly involved with patient care, are currently balloting for industrial action because of concerns about the quality of patient care at the hospital? Does he have any plans to take action to ensure that the threat of industrial action is averted?
    Mr. Dobson: The situation arose under the existing management of the St. Helier hospital and must be sorted out by that management.
    Dr. Tony Wright: Has my right hon. Friend seen a recent survey that shows that some doctors, at least, are not as involved with patient care as they should be? In that survey, published in the British Medical Journal, an astonishing number of junior doctors say that they performed their first operation unsupervised. Is not that extremely alarming for patients? Is not it a good job that patients do not know that? Will my right hon. Friend examine the matter?
    Mr. Dobson: We must certainly ensure that clinical standards in hospitals are raised rather than lowered. There is no possible excuse for junior doctors conducting their first ever operation without proper supervision. It is necessary for junior doctors to perform operations, however, otherwise they will never become sufficiently skilled to work on their own, but they need to be supervised while they are doing it.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is the Secretary of State aware of any occasion on which the Prime Minister has spoken of health service managers with appreciation, or even respect? Can he imagine circumstances in which, at the taxpayer's expense, he would host a glitzy reception at No. 10 to celebrate their contribution to the public good?
    Mr. Dobson: My right hon. Friend is certainly extremely unlikely to host a glitzy reception at No. 10 to celebrate the right hon. Lady's contribution to the national health service. At the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts conference last year he paid tribute specifically to the excellent managers in the NHS. He certainly does not pay tribute to the enormous increase in paperwork that occurred at the Department of Health when the right hon. Lady was supposedly in charge.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to take to ensure that national health service dentistry is available in south Shropshire. [7944]
    Mrs. Ballard: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he is assessing in order to improve access to national health service dentistry. [7952]
    Mr. Milburn: The previous Administration's failures mean that there are problems with access to NHS dentistry in some parts of the country. I shall decide shortly on how best to use the resources available to us for improving the availability of NHS dentistry. In addition, on 1 July I announced the Government's intention to proceed with the piloting of personal dental services under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997. Those measures will help to ensure the provision of dental services that best suit local circumstances.
    Mr. Gill: I do not think that my constituents in south Shropshire will be much impressed by the hon. Gentleman's attempt to shuffle off the responsibility to the previous Government, because the new Government are now responsible for national health service provision in all areas. If he wants to pick a quarrel, let me point out that my party provided 3,500 extra national health service dentists in the period 1979 to 1997. The point at issue is that it is unreasonable for my constituents in south Shropshire to have to journey to Telford or Shrewsbury for dental health treatment. Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that he will correct that situation?
    Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman wants to trade facts of the matter, I am happy to do so. The fact of the matter is that under the Conservative Government the number of adults registered in the Shropshire area for NHS dental treatment fell by more than 1,000 per month over the past year. The Conservative Government were responsible for that, not us.
    Mrs. Ballard: The Minister knows that many people, especially new patients, have problems with access to NHS dentistry. My constituents have been concerned about that for at least the past seven years, so I do not lay the blame at the Government's door. What targets will he set so that improvement in access to NHS dentistry can be measured? Will they relate to distance travelled or to the number of dentists per 10,000 population? Can we have specific measurements of performance that we can tell our constituents to expect within a certain timetable?
    Mr. Milburn: We are considering two issues: how best to use the resources available to plug the gaps in provision to which the hon. Lady alludes, and how more effectively to use those resources the better to ensure the improvement of oral health. She recognises that there are major variations in oral health performance between areas. I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health will be undertaking an important joint initiative to ensure that access to NHS dentistry is more widely available and that our resources better improve the oral health of the population.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does not it take enormous brass neck for the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill),

    743
    11 weeks into a new Labour Government, to ask a question about NHS dentistry when, according to the Library, he has not asked a question on dentistry in the past two Parliaments, going back to 1987? NHS dentistry is a desert not only in south Shropshire but in places such as north-east Lancashire. Is not it time that more was put into dental services to ensure that our NHS dental service is capable of surviving after 18 years of Tory government?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right to make that point about the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). An announcement will be made in due course about how we intend to target the resources that we have to improve availability and the oral health of the nation.

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the financial impact of the abolition of compulsory competitive tendering in the national health service. [7945]
    Mr. Milburn: There is no compulsory competitive tendering in the national health service. The Government are, however, examining market testing policy, in particular the current requirement to market-test catering, cleaning and laundry services. Whatever the outcome of the review, we are committed to best value in terms of both cost and quality of service for all NHS patients.
    Mr. Swayne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that excellent reply. Does he agree with the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I shall quote if I may—who, in 1995, said that the benefits from compulsory competitive tendering had been made
    "at the expense of blue collar workers"
    and that that was why he was against it? Has he changed his mind? Does the Minister agree that competitive tendering provides an effective means of market testing? Will he confirm that it has saved the NHS £1 billion since 1993?
    Mr. Milburn: Five marks for artistic impression, none for substance. The hon. Gentleman is obviously unaware not just of the concerns of NHS staff and managers about compulsory market testing but of the concerns of commercial contractors. He might know of the Business Services Association, which represents leading-edge cleaning and catering companies. Its director general said recently:
    "Our most urgent task is to convince the public sector that we genuinely want a partnership based on mutually compatible objectives. The confrontational approach of CCT and market-testing must be transformed into a system of co-operation between public and private sectors."
    We have been listening to the private sector. Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not. I conclude from that that the Conservative party has nothing of value to say on the NHS and does not even represent the interests of the private sector, which it claims to speak for.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend explain to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) that no hospital service survives in a clean and secure state if it
    744
    is run by low-paid, disaffected and unhappy people such as the low-paid workers who provide the profits for unscrupulous private contractors?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Catering, cleaning and portering staff deliver part of the family of services provided under the umbrella of the NHS. They play an important role in hospitals and other settings in the NHS. The Government value and respect their contribution and we want value for money and quality of provision to go hand in glove in the future.
    Mr. Maples: Is the Minister aware that an estimate produced by his Department at the end of the last Parliament suggested that the savings made for the NHS by competitive tendering were about £90 million a year? If that is added to the cost of the minimum wage that the Government propose to introduce and to the impact of inflation next year, how much of the additional £1 billion that his Department obtained in the Budget will be available for patient care?
    Mr. Milburn: I have a fairly simple view about statistics produced under the previous Administration—they are wrong.

    Tobacco
    Ms Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to reduce tobacco consumption. [7946]
    Dr. Iddon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to reduce tobacco advertising. [7948]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The Government are fully committed to banning tobacco advertising as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the 120,000 deaths every year caused by smoking or smoking-related illnesses. We made clear our intention to do this in our manifesto. A summit of national and international experts was held on 14 July to examine options for reducing smoking and controlling tobacco consumption. It is essential that we get the right combination of measures rather than rely on any single measure. The results of the summit will help inform Government policy and we will set out our strategy to reduce smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption, including our plans for legislation, in a White Paper to be published later in the year.
    Ms Stuart: Is my hon. Friend aware of just how badly the previous Government's strategy to control smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds failed? I am particularly concerned about young girls. Ten years ago, one in five girls aged 15 smoked—now, one in three smoke. What are the Government doing to improve that appalling statistic and to protect children from the dangers of tobacco?
    Ms Jowell: The first step is to realise that young people—young women in particular—are susceptible to the influence of direct tobacco advertising and indirect advertising through sport and other sponsorship. My hon. Friend is right. If we are not successful in reducing

    745
    smoking among young women, they will become young mothers who smoke and whose children will be affected.
    Dr. Iddon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that smoking kills 120,000 people every year. That is equivalent to six jumbo jets crashing every week with total loss of life. If that happened, there would be public outrage and calls for action. What package of measures is my hon. Friend therefore proposing to adopt to tackle one of the nation's most deadly killers?
    Ms Jowell: I should make it clear that the purpose of the anti-smoking summit held on 14 July was precisely to get the best possible advice about the range of measures that should be included in the White Paper that will frame the legislation to ban tobacco advertising, which will be published later this year. There is no single measure that will enable us to make an impact on those wasted deaths. We realise that it is through a combination of measures that we will achieve that end; that is why we have sought the advice of experts from around the world to ensure that we have a policy that works.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Lady is right to say that a combination of pressures is needed to stop 5,000 teenagers a week taking up smoking. Is it possible to learn some lessons from the continuing campaign to end drink-driving? Can she try to give more emphasis to the points that she used to make on radio, with some effect—if people around smokers disapprove, those smokers are far less likely to continue to smoke and if people smoke in front of those who are younger than them, the young are far more likely to copy them?
    Ms Jowell: The Government will examine a range of evidence when drawing up their programme of anti-smoking measures. It is quite clear that children who are brought up in households where the parents smoke are more likely to smoke. That significant fact explains why it is also important that, through good health education in schools, we ensure that children are aware of the risks of smoking and seek to influence the behaviour of their parents.
    Mr. Forth: Does the Minister propose to replace the current health warnings that appear in advertising and, if so, what is her estimate of the cost of that?
    Ms Jowell: I repeat that last week's summit examined a range of measures. We will consider where we need to take further steps to alert the public to the risks of smoking. We will bring forward our proposals in the autumn.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Goggins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take to speed up the national health service private finance initiative. [7947]
    Mr. Dobson: We have already speeded up the NHS private finance initiative. We have given the go-ahead for 14 major hospital projects and passed the first Act of this new Parliament to clear up the law on the operation of the PFI in the NHS.
    Mr. Goggins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to speed up implementation of the PFI in the
    746
    NHS is to ensure that the 14 projects—I am happy to say that one is in my constituency—deliver what they promise? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he intends to take to monitor the progress of those initiatives and to ensure that the schemes deliver on price and on time?
    Mr. Dobson: I confirm that we will keep a close eye on the 14 projects to ensure that they get on with the job and stick to the agreed price and time scale. I am extremely glad that the go-ahead has been given for the south Manchester hospital at Wythenshawe in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Paice: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that private finance has existed in the NHS through general practitioner services because, over the years, they have invested in their premises to develop a modern and sophisticated service. Is he aware that in rural areas many of those GPs' private investments to enhance the services that they give their patients would be threatened if they lost the opportunity to dispense drugs to their patients because a pharmacy moved into the village? Many such places are at risk, including a major practice in my constituency which is under threat because a pharmacy has moved to the village. The practice could be made bankrupt as a result. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgent need for a review, and action, on the disparity of dispensing rules in rural areas?
    Mr. Dobson: I am not sure that that issue relates to the private finance initiative, but I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. We have to ensure that the health service is designed to provide the services people need in each particular locality and that we do not try to force a particular model on every part of the country.
    Mr. Richard Allan: While I accept that the fast-tracking process is a vast improvement on the PH mess created by the previous Government, will the Secretary of State say how much public capital is to be made available to help to pick up badly needed projects, such as the proposed women's hospital in my constituency, which were not selected for the fast track?
    Mr. Dobson: There are two points to make. We fast-tracked 14 new hospitals, so we managed to achieve in 11 weeks what the Tory party had failed to do in the five-year period since adopting the PFI approach, spending £30 million of taxpayers' money in the process. Because a scheme was not one of the first 14 chosen does not necessarily mean that it will not go ahead under the PFI. In any case, as we have made clear, more than £1 billion a year from the public sector will be available for national health service capital costs.

    Treatments
    Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what numbers of patients he expects the national health service to treat in each of the next three years. [7949]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The range of services provided by the NHS, whether in hospitals, in the community or in GP practices, and the variety of means of

    747
    measurement, are such that it has not historically proved possible to arrive at a single figure for the number of patients to be treated.
    Dr. Fox: Notwithstanding that somewhat disappointing answer, it is obvious that the number treated will depend on the budgets available to the NHS. In response to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Minister of State indicated that he would like wages in the NHS to rise. If a settlement similar to the £4 minimum wage now given to local authority workers in Scotland is reached in the NHS, what additional costs does the Minister estimate the NHS will have to bear?
    Mr. Boateng: The disappointment, such as it is, arises from the appalling legacy left by the Conservative Government's stewardship of the Department of Health over some 18 years. This year's Budget settlement was very good; it will seek real growth of some 2.35 per cent. as opposed to the growth anticipated by the previous Government of some 1.2 per cent. That is progress under Labour, delivered in a way that is about patient care, not about bureaucracy.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability of the NHS to treat and discharge patients depends on multi-agency assessments and the provision of care in the community? In that regard, the additional resources for the NHS are most welcome, but does he share my concern that, if they are not matched by additional resources for social services, we shall be in danger of riding a tandem with the risk of one wheel dropping off?
    Mr. Boateng: We need to make sure and we will make sure—my hon. Friend is right to say that we must make sure—that local authorities and the NHS work well together. That means making sure that resources are used as effectively as possible. We have already begun a dialogue with the Local Government Association and the NHS executive to make sure that that happens.
    Mr. Jack: The Minister will be aware that, last week, there was an announcement about waiting lists. That will have a crucial effect on the number of patients who can be treated in the NHS. Can the Minister clear up some confusion caused by the announcement in respect of hospital trusts? What will happen in the case of a hospital trust that has negotiated contracts with more than one health authority? In the case of a trust that has a contract with, say, four authorities, three of which have specified a higher level of service than the fourth, can he confirm that the new arrangements will require—without the Secretary of State's prompting—that all those patients face a levelling down of service as a result of the creation of a common waiting list?
    Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman really ought not to believe that a Labour Government work on the same basis as the previous, discredited, Tory Government. We are concerned to level up patient care, but he thinks in terms of levelling down. The assumption he makes is totally without foundation: we will aim for the best practice and we will encourage trusts and authorities to work together to make sure that that happens.

    Health Service Funding
    Mr. David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much extra money was allocated to health for 1998–99 as a result of the 1997 Budget. [7951]
    Mr. Dobson: In the recent Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £1 billion for the national health service in England in 1998–99. That, combined with the planned increase of £775 million, amounts to an increase of 2.35 per cent. in real terms—the largest increase for the past four years.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Tory plans that he inherited would have meant a real-terms cut in NHS expenditure next year, thus bringing closer the Tories' long-term objective of running down the NHS into a basic safety net service for those unable to afford private care?
    Mr. Dobson: I can confirm my hon. Friend's point. Had we not given the extra £1 billion to the national health service next year, there would indeed have been a reduction in the amount of money spent in real terms, resulting from the budget that we inherited from the profligate Tories.
    Mrs. Roe: Does the Secretary of State believe that the NHS is underfunded?
    Mr. Dobson: Of course it is underfunded; everyone knows that. It has been underfunded since 1948.
    Mr. Sheerman: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on what he could have achieved with the health service if the £5 billion that has been squandered on the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis by the previous Government had been available to him to spend?
    Mr. Dobson: Indeed. I am going around the country explaining how useful £10 million will be when spent on breast cancer services—we shall announce the details on Thursday. Given the immediate benefits that will flow from just £10 million, it is almost impossible to imagine the improvements that could be made to people's health if we had access to the £5 billion that is squandered on BSE-related compensation as a result of the previous Government's stupidity.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State is fortunate in that this question was altered between the time of tabling and today, to ask about not this year's, but next year's, Budget. However, given that the Minister of State said a minute ago that the trouble with Tory figures was that they were wrong, will the Secretary of State come clean about the figures that follow on from the percentage figure that he gave? The increase to the health service this year is nothing and the increase next year, after taking inflation into account, is significantly less than £1 billion—right or wrong?
    Mr. Dobson: For a start, the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced was basically the Budget for spending, not for this financial year, but for the next financial year—a fact that does not seem to have sunk into some people's minds. The increase

    749
    that we have announced, together with the increase that was already in the Budget, means that there will be a 2.35 per cent. increase in real terms—more than twice what the Liberal Democrats promised in their election manifesto.
    Mr. Martlew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although budgets are tight, trusts are not collecting money that is owed to them? I am talking about the money that is owed to them by insurance companies as a result of road traffic accidents. What effort is my right hon. Friend making to encourage trusts to collect the many millions of pounds that insurance companies owe the NHS?
    Mr. Dobson: As recently as 1988, the previous Government confirmed the law under which insurance companies are supposed to pay up for the cost of treating people who suffer from road accidents. The system that was then introduced brings in practically no money, and we will change the law so that we get the money to which the public purse is entitled from the insurance companies. The amounts vary between £50 million a year, estimated by the Department of Health, and £440 million a year, estimated by the Automobile Association. I look forward to receiving the money, and I am at the moment pondering arrears.

    Waiting Times
    Mr. Blunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS in-patients were waiting over one year for treatment (a) in March 1979 and (b) in the latest month for which figures are available. [7953]
    Mr. Milburn: At the end of March 1979, there were 185,195 patients waiting more than a year for treatment at national health service hospitals—an increase of 24 per cent. over the previous year. The final figure for the end of March 1997 is 31,208. This represents an increase of 580 per cent. over the previous year.
    Mr. Blunt: Given the startling contrast between 180,000 in 1979 and 30,000 today, when does the Minister expect the Government to deliver on their manifesto promise of reducing waiting lists by 100,000? Or is it impossible to give a date, because the Minister knows that the Government's policies are a mirage and will not work or deliver reduced waiting lists? Perhaps the Minister would be better off speculating about the date when the Prime Minister will invite the Secretary of State to pay the price of the hospital pass that he gave when he appointed him.
    Mr. Milburn: The Government are already delivering on their manifesto promises. We said that we would cut bureaucracy: we are cutting it. We said that we would get rid of the two-tier national health service: we are. We said that we would replace the internal market: we are. No one in the Labour party underestimates the problems that we were left by the previous Government. Certainly, the Conservative party set some NHS records—record numbers of patients waiting for treatment, record numbers of health authorities in trouble and a record fall in staff morale.
    Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will recognise that the real waiting time for the average member of the public waiting
    750
    for hospital surgery starts from the date of first referral by the general practitioner, not from the first consultation with a specialist. When will Labour's commitment to abolishing the bureaucracy that has been created be put into effect to eliminate that problem, to ensure that people get surgery as speedily as possible?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Patients judge how long it takes to get NHS treatment from the point of referral by the GP, so waiting times are high. In the short term, they are set to get higher, precisely because of the legacy that we face. We shall do all we can as soon as we can to bring waiting times down.
    Mr. Keetch: When will these 100,000 additional placements be dealt with by the Government? How will the Government calculate the number? Did not the Under-Secretary accept earlier that there is no way of calculating the figure? Is it not true that the Government gave a manifesto commitment that they do not know how to achieve?
    Mr. Milburn: I repeat, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who was clearly not listening earlier, that the Government are committed to delivering, and are delivering, their manifesto commitments. The fact that we have cut £100 million from NHS bureaucracy to put it into patient care is the first sign of things to come. The second sign of things to come is the Budget announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of increased NHS spending of £1 billion in England. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats went into the general election promising to increase the NHS budget by £500 million: we have doubled that.
    Mr. Maples: I assume that the hon. Gentleman took his earlier figures from the Department of Health statistical bulletin for 1997; it was good to hear him quoting the Department's statistics without rubbishing them. Will he confirm, however, that they also show that, in March 1979, 25 per cent. of people on the waiting list had been waiting for more than a year, whereas at the end of March this year, when this Government took over, the figure was down to 6 per cent.?
    Mr. Milburn: I can confirm that, by March 1997, there had been an increase of 580 per cent. in the number of NHS patients waiting for hospital treatment. In the year to March 1979, there had been an increase of rather less than that. We have certainly set some records concerning the NHS waiting list. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would stop chuntering and start listening, perhaps he would learn something.

    Health Promotion
    Mr. Levitt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to promote good health in schools. [7954]
    Mr. Dobson: Healthy schools will be a major target of our new health strategy for England. We will be working in partnership with the Department for Education and Employment and local authorities to promote the health

    751
    and well-being of schoolchildren. A major objective will be to improve the nutritional value of school meals by introducing national nutritional standards.
    Mr. Levitt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. It will be applauded throughout the country. Will he ensure that there is maximum co-operation among education staff, health service staff and parents at a local level in the effective promotion of our young children's health?
    Mr. Dobson: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I should like at this time to pay tribute to the efforts of Derbyshire county council, in the face of all sorts of abuse from the Conservatives, in maintaining a very high standard of school meal services and trying to keep the price down. We should not underestimate the value of a decent meal for many children from deprived homes. We have now reached the stage where children are not able to wait for the school dinner in the middle of the day; some of them have to be given breakfast because they are going so short of food. As was said in the debate on the introduction of local authority provision of school meals in 1906, a hungry child cannot learn.
    Mr. Garnier: Can the Secretary of State tell me how much of the money that he mentioned in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) will be spent on promoting health in schools in Leicestershire?
    Mr. Dobson: No. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been in the House more than 10 weeks, ought to have a rough idea of the fact that the amount of money that will be spent in schools in Leicestershire will, generally, be determined by Leicestershire county council, Leicester city council or—I believe—even Rutland council. We are determined that there will be national nutritional standards which all authorities will have to reach. One of the meanest, nastiest acts of the previous Government was to take away those national nutritional standards, undermining the health of tens of thousands of the poorest children in the land.
    Mr. MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because of the weather, one of the problems facing schools this summer is a plague of nits in young children's hair? It may not be a problem for him or me, since there is no hair to hide in. From talking to many head teachers, it is apparent that the problem has arisen because the school nurse became an almost extinct species under the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend talk with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to see what can be done to ensure that school nurses are brought back and children's hair is properly examined? [Interruption.] It is a serious problem, despite the laughter of Opposition Members.
    Mr. Dobson: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that our hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health is discussing with the chief medical officer and others what we do at a local level to promote public health and, in particular, give not just the necessary health advice but health help to schools so that the nit nurse reappears.
    Mr. Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman would doubtless agree that he hopes that the Government's
    752
    commitment to ban tobacco advertising will play its part in promoting the health of young children. If that is so and if tobacco is as bad as we have heard today, should not the Government seize the moral high ground and ban it completely—or is his right hon. Friend the Chancellor simply too addicted to the revenue from it?
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman gets worse. I think that everybody in the country recognises that banning tobacco is not a practical proposition, because of all the consequences that would flow from it. Nevertheless, we have an obligation to try to stop the tobacco companies—which kill 120,000 of their customers every year—targeting their advertising on children so that they can recruit another 120,000 people to kill off a few years later.

    Public Health Strategies
    Ms Southworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to promote local health strategies to improve public health. [7955]
    Ms Jowell: Our strategy for public health recognises that we must operate at three levels if we are to make a real impact. First, Government must do those things that only Government can do. Secondly, individuals must make informed choices about those aspects of their life styles that influence their health. Thirdly, at a local level, health and local authorities must work together and with business, schools and the whole range of local stakeholders to deliver local targets within the framework of a national strategy.
    Ms Southworth: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the Confederation of British Industry, more than 187 million working days were lost in 1996 due to sickness and ill health, which cost the country £12 billion? In my constituency, local businesses have worked with Warrington Community Healthcare NHS trust to develop a healthy businesses initiative and promote health care for their employees, which includes screening for visual display unit users, health and sickness screening and first aid training to improve workplaces. What can my hon. Friend do to spread that good practice across the country and ensure healthy workplaces for all?
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I would be most interested to receive further information about the local initiative that she describes, as a major part of our public health strategy will be the development of healthy workplaces and working with businesses and industry to make the business case for public health.
    Mr. Baldry: Does the Minister accept that one of the most important parts of any local health strategy is the relationship between social services and local health authorities? Is she aware that, at any one time, between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of beds in the Horton general hospital in Banbury are blocked by patients waiting for care in the community funding? That exacerbates the hospital's budget problems and, as a result, 12 surgical beds and a day hospital for the elderly were closed yesterday. Will the hon. Lady conduct a survey across the country to determine how many beds are blocked by patients awaiting social service funding for care in the community?
    Ms Jowell: Once again, a Conservative Member abdicates any responsibility for the circumstances of the

    753
    past 10 years that have created the situation that he now regrets. We believe that local partnerships are essential, and we are concerned to see that the responsibilities of health authorities and local social services authorities are discharged properly. However, our local initiatives will embrace a far wider range of organisations to combat deprivation and meet our election commitment to tackling the root causes of ill health.

    "The Health of the Nation"
    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes he proposes to make to "The Health of the Nation" strategy. [7957]
    Mr. Dobson: The previous Government's health strategy had some merits, but focused far too much on personal life style issues. We shall shift the balance in order to tackle the root causes of ill health, such as air pollution, poor housing, unemployment and low wages.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted to hear that there will be changes to "The Health of the Nation" strategy, because it did not make sufficient allowances for the consequences of poverty and bad social conditions—both of which increased so much under the last Government—for health. However, will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will not throw out the baby with the bath water? A strategy of targeting is useful in bringing resources to crucial areas—particularly in primary care—and it is a valuable instrument in popular health education and in strengthening personal responsibility for attaining those targets.
    Mr. Dobson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is true that national targets tend to obscure what goes on locally, so we need local targets as well. It is true also that we are dealing with some of the major sources of ill health among the most deprived people in England by improving and building new houses through the release of capital receipts from the sale of council housing, by creating jobs that will be funded from the windfall tax and by tackling the health problems that result from dependency on low wages through our proposal to introduce a national minimum wage—which is always readily condemned by Conservative Members, who do not give a damn about the health of those who are worse off.

    Stillbirth and Mortality Rates
    Mrs. Brinton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the rates of (a) stillbirth and (b) mortality amongst (i) manual and (ii) non-manual groups in the last year for which figures are available. [7958]
    Mr. Boateng: In 1995, stillbirth rates for all registrations where manual or non-manual status could be assigned were 5.9 per 1,000 total births among manual groups and 4.5 per 1,000 total births among non-manual groups. Rates were thus more than 30 per cent. higher in manual groups.
    The most robust figures for similar comparisons of overall mortality relate to men of working age. Over the period 1991 to 1993, death rates among men aged 20 to
    754
    64 were 524 per 100,000 in manual groups and 325 per 100,000 in non-manual groups. Rates were thus more than one and a half times higher in manual groups.
    Mrs. Brinton: Does my hon. Friend agree that those are shocking and persistent inequalities and that we are reaching the end of 20th century, not mired in the Victorian era? Does he further agree that those terrible figures are a result of the policies of poverty, unemployment and deprivation promoted by the previous Administration? Furthermore, what strategies does he have to deal with them?
    Mr. Boateng: I agree with my hon. Friend on all counts. I am happy to give what assistance I can. We are concerned to attack the root causes of deprivation and disadvantage. The proposals of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health will make a good start in that direction. We are determined to address the whole needs of the whole nation, in marked contrast to Opposition Members.
    Dr. Brand: Will the Minister also look at the way in which provision for services provided by the professionals who are most concerned with these ghastly figures is targeted in the areas where it is most required? I am thinking of health visitors, district nurses and school nurses.
    Mr. Boateng: I very much share the hon. Gentleman's concern. In terms of the preparation of women who are about to give birth, we must ensure that we support the health care professionals in reaching out to those women who currently are not given the support from their partners or families that is vital if people are to bring children into the world who are hale and hearty. We will indeed work with health care professionals to ensure that their work is most effective in tackling some of these appalling figures.

    Residential Care (Abuse)
    Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take to increase the protection from abuse of people with learning disabilities in residential care. [7959]
    Mr. Boateng: We take the issue of abuse extremely seriously. We are determined to send a clear and unambiguous message that abuse in residential care will not be tolerated. The promulgation of good practice based on respect for the individual, and the importance of being able to identify and remedy actual or potential abuse, is a vital part of the Department's funding strategy, as is its work on developing a credible and comprehensive regulatory framework based on national regulatory care standards.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I congratulate my hon. Friend on ensuring that there is a public inquiry into the scandal in the long-care residential home on the borders of my constituency. Can he give me an assurance that the inquiry's report will be made public, in view of the fact that reports from certain similar inquiries were not made public because of insurance company requirements? When might the powers in the Police Act 1997 to check

    755
    the criminal backgrounds of staff in residential care homes be brought into force, as that would make a huge difference in preventing the occurrence of another long-care tragedy?
    Mr. Boateng: We will certainly ensure that the conclusions of the report into the long-care scandal are made known and, more important, acted on. I am currently meeting the Minister of State, Home Office—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—to determine when we will be able to move forward and ensure that local authorities can safeguard residents in homes by checking on the previous convictions, if any, of those who work there. That is a matter to which we give the highest priority.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will know that the previous Government, and the then Opposition who are now the Government, have had common cause in
    756
    ensuring that we root out any abusers in the care sector. However, will he take great care? A head teacher who came to see me the other day told me that nine out of 10 accusations of child abuse against individuals are found to be unfounded, particularly when they involve children with learning disabilities, and that they can cause enormous problems for and strain on the good staff whom we want to encourage. They are leaving the profession because they feel that they must constantly be on their guard and not be alone with children, because perhaps we have gone too far in what we have been trying to do.
    Mr. Boateng: We are anxious to avoid in any way reinforcing a culture of blame that can all too readily develop in this area. Equally, it is vital that all engaged in such work understand that toughness, transparency and accountability are the hallmarks of an effective regulatory system. That is something that the House will want to see put in place and that is something that we are determined to do.

Welsh Assembly
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for creating an Assembly for Wales.
The Government believe that, in the United Kingdom, too much power is centralised in the hands of too few people. We believe that there is too little freedom for people in each part of the United Kingdom to decide their own priorities. Our manifesto made clear our intention to give Britain a modern constitution fitting a modem and progressive country. We believe that it is right to bring decisions closer to people, to open up government, to reform Parliament and to increase individual rights.
The White Paper that I am publishing today marks a major step forward in the achievement of our proposals for Wales. We propose to create a democratically elected Assembly that will give the people of Wales a real say in the way public services in Wales are run.
Since the Welsh Office was set up more than 30 years ago, there has been a progressive devolution of administration to Wales. As Secretary of State for Wales, I am responsible for taking decisions about health, education, economic development, roads, planning and many other public services that matter to people's everyday lives. I am accountable to the House, but our procedures here are too often seen as remote from the day-to-day realities of devolved administration.
The Government are committed to bringing decisions closer to the citizen. Our aim is to improve public services by making them more responsive to the needs and the views of people in Wales.
Wales will continue to share the same framework of laws as England, including the primary legislation made for it by Parliament, and it will remain firmly part of the United Kingdom. But the new Assembly will assume many of the functions and powers that I currently exercise. It will have at its disposal the staff and budget of the Welsh Office, now some £7 billion; it will determine policies and set standards for major public services; it will bring forward secondary legislation where necessary to implement those policies; and it will assume responsibility for unelected bodies in Wales, and have powers to reform them and bring them to account.
That means that, in future, decisions on schools, health care and other key services will be taken by people directly elected by, and accountable to, Welsh voters, and therefore responsive to their views. We will be equipping the Assembly to set a new economic agenda for Wales, focused on Welsh needs and priorities, to create the new jobs and industry that Wales still badly needs. Above all else, the Assembly will provide a clear and distinctive voice for Wales.
The Government intend that the Assembly should be a new kind of elected body, open to all talents and close to the people it serves, working in partnership with central and local government, for the benefit of all parts of Wales.
It is the Government's intention to forge a new kind of politics. The Assembly will therefore be based on principles of partnership, democracy and inclusiveness.
758
First, the Assembly will improve the government of Wales by working in partnership with others, especially Welsh local government. The partnership between the Assembly and local government will ensure that each tier respects the legitimate role of the other.
In making that point, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for his helpful paper on the proper relationship between the Assembly and local government. Let me tell him and the House that the Assembly will promote and foster local government in Wales; it will regularly review with local government how effectively that commitment is being observed; and it will not be given any new power to take functions away from local government, but will be given powers to transfer functions from quangos to local government. The establishment of the Assembly will give local government a new opportunity to reassert its rightful place as an equal partner in the governance of Wales.
The Assembly will also need to work closely with other key partners, including business and industry and the European institutions. The business community will gain easier access to key decision makers in the Assembly as it pursues its new economic agenda, and the Assembly will listen to the voice of business and respond quickly and effectively to its needs.
The Assembly will foster a new relationship with Europe. The administration of European structural funds is a matter of great importance to us in Wales. That responsibility will pass to the Assembly, which will, in consultation with the Commission, be able to determine priorities for European funding in Wales. Assembly members with executive responsibilities and their officials may, where appropriate, have a role to play in delegations to the Council of Ministers as agreed by the United Kingdom Minister leading those negotiations.
The second principle is democracy. For the first time, the key decisions for Wales will be made by people elected by and democratically accountable to the people of Wales. The executive committee will provide the political leadership of the Assembly, and will be subject to scrutiny through the processes of question and debate. Under the Assembly, policies that matter to people in Wales—education, health and other key public services—will be determined in Wales.
I now turn to the quango state. In recent years, the growth in the number of unelected bodies and some of their activities has caused great concern in Wales. Our proposals for a new and democratic structure of government will address that concern. The Assembly will be given sweeping powers to democratise, and if necessary further restructure, the quangos that remain.
That is a major package of reform, but in the Government's view the need to start the reform of the quango state in Wales is too urgent to be left to await the Assembly. Action is required now, even before the Assembly is established: that point was made forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) in earlier debates. I agree with him, so the Bill establishing the Assembly will, by merging the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales, create a new economic development agency for Wales. It will be a powerhouse to promote the economic regeneration of our country. It will also transfer Tai Cymru's staff and functions to the Welsh Office, and wind up that body.

759
We shall also wind up Cardiff Bay development corporation by March 2000, while securing the continuing development of Cardiff Bay. We shall reduce the number of training and enterprise councils in Wales from six to four, and we shall make important changes to national health service administration. The Government have already announced that the number of NHS trusts will be reduced. Today, I can tell the House that the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority will be wound up and their functions transferred.
Taken together, those proposals will have a profound effect. Unelected bodies will be reduced in number before the Assembly is established, and placed under proper democratic control and scrutiny once the Assembly is in place. No longer will our key public services lie in the hands of political appointees operating in secret and accountable to no one in Wales.
The third principle I mentioned was inclusiveness.
The Assembly that we propose will have 60 members. Forty of them will be directly elected from parliamentary constituencies through the first-past-the-post system, with 20 additional members to provide an element of proportionality. Voters will be able to vote both for constituency candidates and for party lists for additional members. The Assembly will reflect all Wales in its membership and in its working practices, and its committees will give all political parties in the Assembly the opportunity to make their distinctive contribution to its work. Our proposals for regional committees will give all parts of Wales a stake in the Assembly's success.
I want people of real ability and commitment, representing the widest possible range of interests, to serve in the new Assembly. In particular—although this is not a matter for legislation—it is vital for women to participate more in public life in Wales, and I look forward to seeing a high proportion of women as Assembly members.
Members of the official Opposition have suggested that our proposals in some way threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom. That is simply wrong. Parliament will continue to be responsible for primary legislation for Wales, and there will be no reduction in Wales's representation in Parliament as a result of our establishing the Assembly.
The Secretary of State will continue to represent Welsh interests in the Cabinet, and will participate fully in the Government's formulation of policy. Through his links with the Assembly, he will ensure that Wales's voice is heard more clearly on issues of major importance to Wales. In the same way, Assembly officials—who will be members of the Home civil service—will work in close partnership with officials in other Departments in developing policy proposals. Wales will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom: let there be no doubt of that.
We intend to submit our proposals to the people for their endorsement on 18 September. I am making arrangements for the White Paper to be widely available throughout Wales; a leaflet describing our plans will go to every household, and the White Paper text will be made available on the Internet. Everyone in Wales will have the opportunity to know about our plans, and to contribute to the debate in advance of the referendum.
760
The Welsh Assembly is a key element in the Government's project for a new Britain, with strong communities, a modern constitution and a confident place in the world. In this new Britain, Wales will have its voice. The proposals are right for Wales and right for Britain, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. Michael Ancram: The Secretary of State has obviously laboured mightily since his days of voting no to devolution in Wales in 1979. He has brought forth what can only be described as a mess—a vast constitutional mess, the full extent of which will probably become apparent only when we see the draft legislation. That, I suspect, is why we have today a White Paper rather than a draft Bill. There is much that the Government seek to hide from the people of Wales before they vote in the referendum on 18 September.
The White Paper is called "A Voice for Wales". Rarely can there have been a worse misnomer. In reality, the White Paper's proposals amount to the marginalisation of Wales, its sidelining at Westminster and in Government, and the silencing of the voice of Wales where it matters, at the heart of Government. It would be better to call it "A Lost Voice for Wales", because at the end of the day, by definition, this will be a voice that ends up speaking only to itself. This expensive, bureaucratic talking shop will spell the beginning of the end of the great and historic influence wielded by Wales in the United Kingdom. It is bad for Wales, it is bad for the people of Wales, and it is bad for our United Kingdom.
On Friday, we shall debate the details of this damaging document. There will be many probing questions to be asked, to which we shall expect to hear answers. I must tell the Secretary of State that the days for bluster are over: the people of Wales deserve to be given the unvarnished facts before they are asked to vote on 18 September, and we need answers now.
Let me start that process by asking the Secretary of State a few questions now. First, where in the White Paper is the power promised by the Prime Minister in Wales last Friday for the people in Wales, through the Assembly, to run their police? Will that power in fact remain with the Home Office? If so, why has the Prime Minister changed his mind in such a short period?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the overall setting-up costs and running costs of the Assembly set out in the White Paper will not be exceeded? Will he confirm that those costs will be borne by existing Welsh spending programmes and not by the British taxpayer as a whole? Will he also confirm that, under his proposals, the Assembly would have the power to cut revenue support grant to local authorities in Wales in order, if it so chooses, to increase spending on its own programmes, thereby forcing local councils to make good the shortfall by raising council tax? Does he not agree that, if that were to happen, in effect it would be a back-door form of tax raising? How would that fit with his undertakings that there are no tax-raising powers in the White Paper?
What is the difference between an economic powerhouse and a super-quango of the sort that the Secretary of State is committed to destroying? How much does he expect to save from his reorganisation of quangos, and how many jobs in rural areas will be lost as a result of that reorganisation?

761
What will be the real role of the Secretary of State other than as a messenger boy, running to and fro between the Cabinet and the Assembly—a sort of glorified "Postman Ron"? What role will he have in future public expenditure survey reviews, which are so important to the provision of Welsh services, when he will have no responsibility for the matters over which he is arguing? How can he hope to win crucial funding battles with his colleagues in Cabinet? Will he not swiftly become the invisible man at the Cabinet table?
How will the Secretary of State's list system of electing additional members work if the Euro-constituencies on which, according to the White Paper, it is based are abolished in pursuance of the wider Government policy on proportional representation in Euro-elections?
Finally, is it not clear that, far from providing a satisfactory or durable solution, this White Paper presents the opportunity for massive disappointment and consequent disillusion with the devolutionary process, and establishes the basis for a focus of discontent, which will increasingly threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom? Is this White Paper not a fraud on the people of Wales—more like a sales pitch for a dodgy timeshare deal than a document intended to make constitutional history? On reflection, was not the Secretary of State right in his 1979 instinct of voting against devolution for Wales, and would he not be sensible to return to that position now?
Mr. Davies: No, I would not. I will deal with the last point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised at the conclusion of my replies to him.
If the right hon. Gentleman were concerned about the integrity of the United Kingdom, he should have reflected carefully on the attitude of the previous Conservative Government, who ruled Wales ruthlessly in the interests of the Conservative party and of Conservative appointees, rather than of the people of Wales.
If anyone has exacerbated the political situation in Wales, it is my predecessors as Secretary of State: the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who brought the Conservative party into disrepute in Wales, and my immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who managed, thanks to the Conservative record, to ensure that no one in Wales now speaks for the Conservative party, which lost every seat at the last general election defending the status quo. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) would reflect on that.
On the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, the Bill will provide for the transfer of my functions to the Assembly. I do not have responsibility for the police at the moment—although, of course, the Assembly will be able to debate such matters and to make representations. He has raised the question of tax-raising powers. We have made it absolutely clear that the Assembly will not have any direct tax-raising powers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Direct—ah."] Well, of course, I have made it absolutely clear that the Assembly will not have direct tax-raising powers. It will have responsibility for the allocation of the block grant, just as I now have responsibility for that grant. Those powers were exercised by my predecessor in a way that deliberately inflated council tax bills in Wales for the past two years. He wrote
762
to right hon. and hon. Members stating that it was the previous Conservative Government's deliberate policy that council tax bills should increase by more in Wales than in England.
The right hon. Member for Devizes mentioned the rural areas. I give him the categorical assurance that I have given hon. Members who represent those areas that there will be no diminution in support for the rural parts of Wales as a result of the reform of the Development Board for Rural Wales. He spoke about the role of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will continue. Under previous Administrations, the Secretary of State served to bring the Tory writ from Whitehall to Wales. Under Labour's proposals and under the Assembly, the Secretary of State will be the voice of Wales in Government in Westminster and Whitehall, and that is an interesting and worthwhile development.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the additional Member system, and queried what would happen if we were to review constituency boundaries. We would have to deal with that matter at the time, and if the European constituency boundaries were amended, we would have to make provision for the continuation of an additional Member system in future elections.
The right hon. Gentleman started and finished on my decision to reverse the position that I held in 1979. In 1979, I voted against the devolution proposals for what I believed to be a good reason at the time. We had just had an extensive reorganisation of local government, which forced on us in Wales two tiers of local government. There are no longer two tiers: we now have a single tier of unitary authorities. When the right hon. Gentleman has had time to learn a little more about Wales, he will understand our system of local government.
In 1979, we had recently entered Europe, and we faced the prospect of the first elections to the European Parliament. That was a novel development at the time, and there was confusion about the role of the regions in Europe. Since that time, there have been substantial changes. We now have a new relationship with Europe, and I believe that the interests of my country and Britain's regions will be better served by having a positive and distinctive voice in Europe. The powers that have been increasingly devolved to Wales by the right hon. Gentleman's party, by successive Conservative Secretaries of State, since 1979 have resulted in a panoply of powers in the Welsh Office, which need to be put under democratic control.
Finally, I have learnt a bitter lesson since 1979—that rule by the people of Wales, electing their own representatives and deciding their own priorities and policies, is a far better prospect for our people than continuous rule by Conservative Secretaries of State, who represent no one but their own vested ideological interests.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Sadly, I say to my right hon. Friend that I do not think that the document is a bonfire of the quangos. The vast majority of the quangos and the quango state will survive to at least 2000. May I ask him why?
Mr. Davies: We have made it clear in our White Paper that we shall take immediate action to remove nine of the quangos. Within what is called the quango state, there are

763
three separate types of quango. Many of them—by far the greatest number—are those that were set up to provide specialist advice to Government. I do not think that anybody would want to remove the specialist committees that deal with a range of matters ranging from pharmacology to the boundaries of upland farming. Those are advisory committees and are not part of what we understand to be the executive machinery of government. They were set up by Government to provide specialist advice, and any system of government will continue to require them.
Secondly, some quangos were set up by royal charter. It is not within my gift to bring about changes to those bodies, such as the Sports Council for Wales or the governing body of the museum. They must consider their own structure in the light of the Assembly. Thirdly, the sector that deals more specifically with my hon. Friend's concerns consists of the executive quangos. We have taken direct action. We are removing some quangos that deal with economic development or directly with the health service or with housing.
In total, we are reducing the number of executive quangos by nine. Crucially, we are empowering the Assembly. It is important to realise that, when the Assembly is created, it must look at the situation it inherits. It will have a responsibility to decide what it wishes to do with bodies such as the Further Education Funding Council for Wales. There are decisions that we must take now, particularly in respect of economic quangos, to provide the Assembly with the tools to do the job.
As for the other quangos, it seems perfectly in keeping with the principles of devolution to set up the body and give it powers to decide how it wishes to run such internal affairs in Wales.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Liberal Democrats welcome the White Paper. It is about time that Westminster woke up to its responsibilities to other parts of the United Kingdom, and this is the first important step in achieving that for Wales. I am sure that everyone here who is genuinely interested in democracy will support the tenets and the concept behind the White Paper. That is why I hereby categorically state that the Liberal Democrats will campaign for a yes vote on 18 September.
Naturally, there are aspects that concern us. What, for example, will be the future format of regional development support in place of the abolished Development Board for Rural Wales? How does the Secretary of State intend to restructure health provision to try to alleviate the desperate health crisis, especially in the context of the cottage hospitals?
There are also questions about local government, and within that also the reassurance, which I know is in the document, but specifically in terms of the appraisal of exactly what the local authorities will be allowed to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] So my question is: will the Secretary of State reassure us that, over the next seven weeks, he will listen sympathetically and constructively to proposals made by those in other parties and by the general public, to ensure that we have not just a voice for Wales, but a voice for all Wales?
Mr. Davies: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's announcement that he intends to campaign
764
in favour—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must say that I welcome it; of course I do. It shows that there are people in the House who can recognise that sometimes there is a unity that extends across the Floor of the House. If there are matters on which we agree, it seems to me sensible—it might be a mature way of conducting our affairs—to acknowledge where there are agreements, rather than destroying things unnecessarily in order to focus on the disagreements.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Blaenau Gwent.
Mr. Davies: I welcome—
Sir Patrick Cormack: Blaenau Gwent.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is giving us a perfect example of the sort of politics that I want to get away from.
I welcome the commitment by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) to campaign for a yes vote on 18 September. I assure him that I understand the concerns of rural Wales, especially his constituents' fears about the merger of the DBRW with the Welsh Development Agency. The new body will build on the best of both organisations, and it is my absolute determination—I can give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee here and now—to ensure that the work of the DBRW will be continued by the new agency when it is established.
We have made it clear in the White Paper, and it will be a continuing commitment by the Government, that the Assembly will not encroach on the powers of local government, but will work in partnership with it. I believe that, as the quango state is wound down, there will be opportunities for local government to embrace more and more powers, and to play an increasing role in our national affairs. Equally, we are determined to unwind the health quangos. Money saved by reducing the number of quangos will go towards improving the quality of health care.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May I say at the outset that we welcome a number of aspects of the White Paper—those proposals that will be beneficial to Wales. None the less, it will provide an Assembly that we feel is substantially less powerful than Wales needs. At the very least, we should have had a Parliament with powers as strong as those promised to Scotland.
However, no one can deny that, on 1 May, the Government had an overwhelming mandate in Wales for their policies. Was not the scale of the Tories' defeat in Wales, where they lost every seat, a reflection of the disgust felt there at their abuse of power—imposing by governor-general and by quango what they could not secure by democratic mandate? Does the Secretary of State agree that the one overwhelming reason why the people of Wales will vote for his proposals is that they will be seen as a bastion to protect Wales from ever again being the victim of such arbitrary Tory rule?
We welcome the fact that no powers will be taken from local government, that Wales will have a higher profile in Europe, and that the Assembly will be free to develop its policies on a range of issues; but I seek an assurance that the needs of rural Wales will be specifically safeguarded

765
under the new proposed structure. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will be possible for the Assembly to use its powers on a regional basis within Wales, so that, for example, North Wales or Dyfed Powys health authority would become answerable to the elected representatives from those areas?
Will the executive of the Welsh Assembly have as full a right as the Scottish Parliament to fight its corner in Brussels? That consideration is important to agriculture and industry in Wales. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Assembly is to have substantially stronger powers, especially with regard to economics and the development of the Welsh economy, than that proposed in 1979?
We shall study the White Paper carefully. The status quo is not an acceptable option, and we can only hope that the proposed Assembly will have the potential to give Wales the democratic government that our country so greatly needs and deserves.
Mr. Davies: I think that I can reasonably interpret that as a qualified welcome, and I appreciate it as such, although I understand that the proposed Assembly is a far cry from the Parliament on which the hon. Gentleman and his party fought and lost the election; as he rightly says, these are our proposals. He is right to suppose that the Assembly will act as a bastion against the prospect of a further Conservative Government, but I happen to believe that it has merits in its own right: it will improve our democracy, and give us better government.
I especially welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on local government and Europe. There is a developing consensus in Wales about the way forward. The new economic powerhouse will certainly be required to have a system of regional directors, and one of those will by and large mirror the area of the existing Development Board for Rural Wales, so there will be a clear responsibility to continue the board's work.
There are some difficulties that we would have to overcome to achieve the outcome for area health authorities that the hon. Gentleman proposes. There is a statutory requirement on those authorities to include professional medical representatives, and that would obviously have to be accommodated in any reorganised system. At the moment, we also have a binding commitment to operate the Nolan rules for appointments to area health authorities, and we would have to ensure that those rules took account of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I assure him that it would be possible to go down that road if the Assembly so decided.
Wales will not be disadvantaged in our representation in Europe as compared with the Scottish Parliament and its Ministers. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that the current proposal is infinitely stronger than that of 1979, not least in the central mechanism that we are providing to enable the Assembly to improve the living conditions and economic prospects of the people of Wales.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State, like the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), see the Assembly as an evolving concept, developing its powers
766
and its role over time? If so, is he not offering the people of Wales the constitutional equivalent of a mystery tour? They can decide whether to get on the bus, but they can have no say in its ultimate destination.
Mr. Davies: No, I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that it is a mystery tour. Parliament is sovereign and will decide to what extent it wants to devolve powers to the people of Wales. We propose to consult the people of Wales by means of a referendum, and they will decide whether they want to embark on the process; if they decide that it is a tour in which they have no interest, they will tell us so on 18 September.
However, I do indeed consider the Assembly to be an evolving concept. Since 1964, there has been increasing devolution of power to Cardiff. A Secretary of State with very limited powers was appointed in 1964, and those powers were exercised under the Government loyally served by my right hon. Friend, and increased by successive Conservative Secretaries of State. Now, in 1997, there is an extremely powerful Welsh Office, with a budget of about £7 billion; that is out of all proportion to anything that could have been envisaged in 1964.
As Secretary of State, I have responsibility for the equivalent of seven or eight Westminster Departments. No one could have conceived in 1964 that the Welsh Office, as then created, would have become the body that it is today. If the Assembly evolves and becomes more representative, if it gives us a better democracy and serves the people of Wales better, if we have a better economy and more effective public services, that is evolution that I would very much welcome.
Dr. Michael Clark: Does the Secretary of State recall saying in his statement that decisions relating to schools and health in Wales will be taken by people elected by the people of Wales? Does he agree that decisions on schools and health in England will also be taken by people elected in Wales—Welsh Members of Parliament? Does he think that that is right, or does he believe that the English do not have the same right to make their own health and education decisions as the people of Wales?
Mr. Davies: Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. It was this Parliament that decided that provision would be made for the nursery voucher scheme. English, Scottish and Welsh Members participated in those debates and passed the primary legislation. The nursery voucher scheme was then implemented in Wales, in the teeth of the opposition of 34 out of 38 Welsh Members of Parliament. Not one Welsh local authority favoured the scheme. The Welsh Office received some 4,000 letters of opposition and many petitions against it. The system was entirely inappropriate to Wales. It was bureaucratic, divisive and wasteful. The Welsh Office received one letter of support.
The system was implemented in Wales by secondary legislation. The primary legislation was the responsibility of the House. That procedure will remain exactly the same. This House will decide the framework of primary legislation. However, instead of having a Secretary of State for Wales who is not answerable to the people and who implements policy in direct contradiction to the

767
express wishes of the people, it will be the wishes of the people that prevail. That is democracy, and that is what I want to see.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend have the courage to take our campaign into the very heart of the camp of the noes—that is, to the island of Jersey—during the August holidays? Is it not incredible that the Conservative party believes that our constitutional structure is so perfect that it cannot be improved?
Mr. Davies: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I understand that there is an organisation in Wales called the "Say No to Wales" campaign. It is a front organisation, behind which the Conservative party, which is frightened to campaign for a no vote, hides. It is bankrolled by a 92-year-old recluse living in tax exile in Jersey. [Interruption.] If it is a question of open debate, I would rather that the democratically elected representatives of the people of Wales put the case honestly and openly to their constituents. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) hopes to question the Secretary of State at the end. If so, he might keep calm and hold his fire until then. Many hon. Members wish to ask questions. I hope that the Secretary of State will be brisk in his responses.
Mr. Davies: In which case, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I note that the White Paper states that, when the Assembly is set up
"The Secretary of State … will not … be accountable for the activities of the Welsh Assembly".
That is the central point over which the right hon. Gentleman skated in answering the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). If the Secretary of State is no longer accountable to the Welsh Assembly, how do we, as the elected representatives of the United Kingdom Parliament, maintain scrutiny over secondary legislation passed by the Assembly?
At present, we can call the Secretary of State to account. Under the proposed system, however, we will not be able to do so. If that is the case, why should any Welsh Member of Parliament have the right to participate in any debate on matters concerning other parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Davies: The purpose of the exercise—which the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood—is to devolve power. If we devolve power, we have to accept that people may choose to exercise that power in a way we do not like. It is not my desire to devolve power to the Welsh Assembly and then have the opportunity to second-guess it at each and every opportunity. If we devolve, we have to let go, and that is what we propose to do.
Each and every act of devolution, and every decision to pass powers to a Welsh Assembly will be taken by this House. Acting together, English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament will decide the nature and the extent of the powers to be devolved to the Assembly.
Ann Clwyd: As someone who campaigned for a yes vote and who voted yes in the last
768
referendum, I am certain that, after 18 years of Tory government, the people of Wales will have no doubt this time around, and that there will be an overwhelming yes vote for the Assembly.
I would have liked to see a Parliament for Wales, as that would have been an important step forward for democracy in Wales. I hope very much that we will have a Parliament, as the Scots will have.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State particularly mentioned the importance of having more women in public life in Wales. I believe that it has been the fault of the "selectorates" rather than the electorate that we have had so few women in the past. How precisely does he intend to assist that process?
Mr. Davies: I very much appreciate the consistency of my hon. Friend, who puts me to shame by drawing it to the attention of the House. I am grateful for her support, and I know that she will campaign vigorously for the Assembly, in line with the principles she has always advocated. I made it clear in my opening remarks—it is also in the White Paper—that I believe that the Assembly will be better served if it is more representative of all aspects of Welsh life. That means that we have to bring more women into political life in Wales.
However, that is a matter for my hon. Friend and for me as party politicians—it is not a matter for me as Secretary of State. I can assure her that, in the debates that we will have within the Labour party, she will find me a staunch ally.
Mr. Owen Paterson: There appears to be a contradiction here. The Secretary of State has just told us that this Parliament is sovereign. In future, it may come to pass that a policy laid down by this Parliament is in conflict with a policy decided by the Assembly. If this Parliament can overrule the Assembly, does not that render the Assembly nothing more than an expensive talking shop?
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: He is talking through a hole in his hat, and he knows it.
Mr. Davies: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend, but there is another argument that I would rather use.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) must accept, as we do, that this Parliament is sovereign and can override the decisions of a Welsh Assembly at any time if it wishes to do so. But we should not view politics as an all-or-nothing game, in which all power rests at the centre and the wishes of the centre must prevail under all circumstances. I want to see devolved and pluralistic government, and we are proposing to devolve powers to Wales.
If, in five or 10 years' time, the Conservative party wishes to override the people of Wales by exercising the sovereign powers of this Parliament, it can do so. I happen to think that, once the Assembly is created, no Conservative Government who threatened to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people of Wales—or, for that matter, the people of Scotland or the English regions—would be elected.
Mr. Allan Rogers: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind remarks, and I am glad that he found my paper helpful. His proposals do not relieve me of my fears, but that is a subject for future discussion.

769
Although I accept that there is a democratic deficit in Wales—created mainly by the Conservative party and its shameless behaviour in the past 18 years—what disappoints me is that the White Paper is a nationalistic, rather than a parliamentary, response. Does he believe that the 60 members of the future Welsh Assembly will be able to control the quangos, which will not be scrapped? The powerful ones may be merged, but appointments to them will not be scrapped. Does he believe that those 60 members will be better able to control those quangos than him, his Ministers, the Welsh Office and the 40 elected Members of Parliament?
Are we not democratically accountable? Are my right hon. Friend and his Ministers incapable of, or incompetent at, policing what will be left of the quango state? If the Secretary of State can demonstrate, once the Bill is drawn up, that we will get rid of the quango state, I should be only too happy to support his proposals.
Mr. Davies: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's qualified support. The proposals spell the end of the quango state in Wales. In the past 15 years, that state has been characterised by the surreptitious and corrupt appointment of, by and large, Conservative placemen by previous Conservative Secretaries of State. Those quangos have followed a Conservative party agenda. They met in secret, and were not accountable either to the House or to Welsh public opinion. That will come to an end, because there will be a substantial reduction in the number of quangos.
We will ensure that appointments to the quangos that remain will be open, properly advertised and made according to the Nolan principles. The terms of reference of those few remaining quangos will be set by the Assembly after public debate, and it will be charged with scrutinising and calling to account their actions. That is a far better prospect than rule by the quangos established by previous Conservative Secretaries of State, who conspired in the House to prevent Members of Parliament from carrying out their proper legitimate duty to scrutinise the activities of those quangos.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Secretary of State painted a glowing picture of the weight of responsibility that he currently carries, with budgets of £7 billion, offices to run and so on. When all that is devolved, what on earth will he be left to do? The truth of the matter is that he does not care, because, if he takes this mess successfully through the House, he will no doubt hope to be promoted to a real job, leaving the insubstantial shadow to someone else.
Mr. Davies: Most people in Wales will regard those comments as particularly insulting. I believe that I have an important role, and I regard it as a great privilege to serve the people of Wales. I happen to believe that those people would be better served if they had greater control over the services which influence their lives in so many ways.
As I explained to another Conservative Member, this House will be the legislative body for the people of Wales. The British Cabinet will construct the relevant legislation and will put in place the mechanisms for
770
devolution that will operate in Wales. It will be very important for Wales to have a Secretary of State to ensure that the voice of Wales is heard in the British Cabinet. It is important to ensure that the people of Wales have a voice to speak on their behalf about the conduct of all Government affairs. It is important that the people of Wales have a voice in Europe to ensure that when European decisions are taken our voice is heard among those of the people of England and Scotland.
The Secretary of State will have a continuing role, if a changing one. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that politics is not fossilised. Our constitution evolves, and it must be democratic and dynamic. It must change to suit modern circumstances.
Sir Raymond Powell: I recall my right hon. Friend's support for women in his statement. Would he therefore consider whether it might have been possible to abolish the proportional representation system, as he has proposed, in favour of 80 members of the Assembly, 40 men and 40 women, elected for the 40 constituencies? That would undoubtedly have pleased the women of Wales, and the women of the country. It would have given at least an opportunity to every man and every woman in Wales to represent one of the 40 constituencies.
I put that proposal to the commission of the Labour party executive committee in Wales. I thought that it would at least look at it seriously and decide not introduce a PR system. I must tell the Secretary of State that I do not intend to vote for the proposals if they include one on PR. Indeed, I shall only be more or less following what he has now admitted he did in 1979, when I and several others were trying to introduce a Welsh Assembly. I trust that he has now decided that he is quite prepared to listen to the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and others whose views might, like mine, differ from his on this issue.
I conclude by asking this question. Some time ago, my right hon. Friend made a statement about abolishing all the quangos—sweeping them away as soon as we had a Labour Government and Welsh devolution; so why is he is currently proposing that only one fifth should be done away with?
Madam Speaker: Before the Secretary of State responds, may I make a plea to all hon. Members to put only one question to the Secretary of State? We have spent a long time on this issue, and we shall be coming back to it. We are not debating the White Paper; we are questioning the Secretary of State's statement and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be brisk, so that I can call as many hon. Members as possible.
Mr. Davies: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know that my hon. Friend is a long-standing opponent of proportional representation and that he made a submission to the Labour party policy commission that considered these matters. The commission considered his views, and the option of including a double number of constituency representatives to ensure that women were represented. However, it was the commission's view that that was not

771
the way to proceed, and that view was put to the Labour party conference in February this year and accepted unanimously. I am loyal to that policy.
Mr. Edward Garnier: What will happen to the Welsh Grand Committee following the setting up of the Assembly?
Mr. Davies: That will be a matter for the House to decide.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: On the question of quangos, I have not yet read the White Paper in detail, but my impression is that a number will be cut and a number will be merged. That is not proper democratisation, and our pledge was that we would bring unelected quangos under democratic control. Referring particularly to the Welsh Arts Council and the Welsh Language Board, it is strange to be thinking of an elected Assembly that does not take over responsibility for the arts and the language, which are unique to the Principality.
Mr. Davies: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that he has not had a chance to read the White Paper. When he has had a chance to do so, he will understand that we refer specifically to those points.
Madam Speaker: As the Secretary of State is trying to indicate, we are not today debating the White Paper. That will come later.
Mr. Davies: Let me reassure my hon. Friend that we are making substantial inroads into the number of quangos, and that all remaining quangos will be fully accountable to the Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Eric Forth: One gathers that the set-up costs of this exercise will be some £12 million to £17 million, and that the annual running costs will be £15 million to £20 million. Can the Secretary of State give an undertaking that that will all be paid for out of the Welsh block grant, and that the English taxpayer will in no sense be asked to pay for any of this extravaganza?
Mr. Davies: I do not think that the Treasury calculates the tax receipts it currently receives on the basis of whether they are paid by English, Welsh or Scottish taxpayers. However, the costs of the Welsh Assembly will be met from the eventual settlement between the Welsh Office and the Exchequer.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Now that the Tory party has decided to leave Wales to its own devices, may I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the intrepid explorers of his Department on having apparently found at last the source of Lake Quango, where those undemocratic creatures have been breeding so prolifically in recent years? I recommend a strong spraying of DDT—democratic deficit treatment.
Even if that is done in several stages—partially by primary legislation here and now and partially by the Welsh Assembly itself—will my right hon. Friend give
772
an undertaking that, in the end, the quango state will have been uprooted and properly dealt with through the processes of democratisation?
Mr. Davies: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute guarantee. I am grateful for his continued support in these matters.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Talking of democratic deficits, will the Secretary of State be standing for the Welsh Assembly, or does he intend to lord it over the Assembly as the viceroy of the valleys?
Mr. Davies: The purpose of the reforms is to introduce a new democracy to ensure that we have sensible, rational and mature debates. I have no desire to lord it over anyone.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Was my right hon. Friend cheered this morning by the words of Mrs. Betty Campbell, who heads a school in the Butetown area of Cardiff? That school is very similar to Pillgwenlly school in my constituency where, last Saturday, children, mixed together, mostly from ethnic minority backgrounds, sang in English, Welsh and Urdu.
Is not a minor miracle going on in Wales, in which groups of people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds—including Welsh-speaking Members of Parliament from Irish stock—come together? Can we not say in the Assembly, in that stronger identity that we have in Wales, that this is a nation made up of many ethnic groups, composed of races from throughout the world? We have a proud record of racial harmony, which we can express with the stronger identity that we shall have among the other nations of Europe under the Assembly, which will be welcomed by all the peoples of Wales.
Mr. Davies: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. It is worth reflecting on the two campaigns that we shall have in Wales. We shall have the "Yes for Wales" campaign, which will be composed of people from all walks of life coming together voluntarily to campaign for a newer, better and more confident Wales. They will be opposed by the "Say No to Wales" campaign, a Tory front organisation, representing no one, with no hope, no interests and no prospect of ever again representing anyone in Wales.
Mr. Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State must be aware that, last Thursday evening, a significant number of Welsh Members trooped into the Government Lobby to rate-cap two English shire counties: Oxfordshire and Somerset. If, in future, English Members are no longer to have any say or involvement in Welsh education, Welsh housing and Welsh health, what possible justification can there be in future for Welsh Members to determine matters affecting class size in my constituency, or the level of funding for counties such as Oxfordshire or Somerset?
Mr. Davies: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he has not yet had the chance to read the White Paper and does not understand the nature of the proposals. This is the Parliament of the people of Wales, and this is the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom; any proposals relating to Welsh education, the Welsh health

773
service or any other matters relating to Wales will be decided by this House. It is right that people from Wales should be represented when legislation that has a direct impact on the people of Wales is passing through the House of Commons.
Mr. Llew Smith: The Secretary of State once said that he intended to scrap the quango state in Wales; he has obviously failed dismally to do so. However, does he realise that, if one wished to scrap those quangos, one would not need to have recourse to an expensive Welsh Assembly? They were set up by this Parliament and they can be repealed by this Parliament—as I said, without an expensive Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Davies: Yes, the quangos could be repealed. However, the work of organisations such as the Welsh Development Agency has made a significant improvement to the quality of life of my hon. Friend's constituents. I happen to think that bodies such as that have significantly improved the economic prospects of our people in Wales and the quality of the public services they enjoy.
I want not so much to abolish those quangos as to ensure that the services they provide are democratically accountable to the people of Wales. In doing so, we do need to get rid of the boards, but I ask my hon. Friend not to confuse my determination to get rid of the unelected, unaccountable boards with his apparent determination to get rid of the quangos and the executive functions that they perform. I can assure him that, if we were to do as he suggests, Welsh public life would be very much the poorer.
Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Wales are a mature political democracy, quite capable of taking decisions for themselves? However, will he assure my constituents on Deeside—indeed, people throughout north-east Wales—that there are advantages to be gained from an Assembly, bearing in mind the fact that many of my constituents believe that Cardiff is a faraway, rather foreign place? Does he see a long-term future for the great office of Secretary of State for Wales?
Mr. Davies: I have already dealt several times with the question of the office of Secretary of State, but I am grateful for the continued support of my hon. Friend in this matter. The office of Secretary of State will continue. I also assure my hon. Friend that the economic powerhouse will be specifically charged with containing a north Wales division. The work being done at the moment by the Welsh Development Agency, in conjunction with the North Wales Forum, will continue.
The Assembly will also have a statutory duty to set up a regional committee structure; one of those committees will be a north Wales committee. Therefore, if my hon. Friend feels that Cardiff is a long way from north Wales, he can be reassured that the people of north Wales will have their own clear structure in the Assembly—and their own clear voice.
Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Secretary of State comment further on the precise
774
powers that the Assembly will have in the domestic areas of health, education and housing? Either those powers will be meaningful and greater than the powers that local authorities already have, or the Assembly will be little more than a talking shop. If it has powers to act contrary to the Government of the day, will that not have long-term implications? For instance, its block grant should be no more than pro rata, and should no longer include subsidies from England.
Mr. Davies: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. As for the first part, the powers that the Assembly will have are the powers that I currently exercise. They will be published before the Second Reading of the substantive Bill, and the full details will be provided in the transfer order before the final passage of that Bill through both Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Tim Collins: As the Secretary of State is proposing that 40 members of the Assembly should have constituencies, and hence presumably constituency postbags and surgeries, while 20 of them will have none, how can he possibly say that every member will have equal status?
Mr. Davies: It is a matter of fact that 60 persons will sit in the Assembly. Each and every one of them will be responsible to the constituents who elect them. But some will be elected by the first-past-the-post system, with the equivalent of parliamentary constituencies, and others will be elected on the party list system, responsible for representing a wider European constituency. The hon. Gentleman may be looking for symmetry, but, over the hundreds of years that the British constitution has been developing, it has never exhibited symmetry. The hon. Gentleman is wasting his time if he tries to achieve it now.
Mr. Mackinlay: May I tell the Secretary of State why I, an English Member of Parliament, welcome these proposals? I do so because they relate to the good governance of the United Kingdom, and they may herald electoral reform for the rest of the United Kingdom. When my right hon. Friend talks to Cabinet colleagues, will he bear in mind the need to argue that we must not stop at devolution for Wales and Scotland, important nations though they are?
We need constitutional symmetry throughout the United Kingdom, to deal with the problems of quangos and all the other undemocratic and unaccountable institutions that we have had to endure. There is also the problem of secondary legislation that goes through this place unscrutinised—that particularly affects England. Will my right hon. Friend encourage his colleagues in Cabinet to devolve power throughout the United Kingdom, and to see this as but an important first step for us all?
Mr. Davies: I most certainly will. It is the Government's policy to bring about devolution for Scotland and Wales, and I hope that the bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland will continue—although I am at a loss to understand why the Conservative party thinks that an Assembly for Northern Ireland would unite the United Kingdom but an Assembly for Wales would divide it. Once we have regional government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I hope that we shall proceed to strong regional government in England.

775
We also need more constitutional reform. The proceedings of this House and of the House of Lords could do with a great deal of improvement—as could many other practices in what passes for our democracy. A new broom is called for.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for calling me. Annex B shows clearly that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to take his top slice off the Welsh block grant to pay for his own office, but that the rest of the block grant can be vired by the Assembly—his statement has also made that clear.
If this House votes a certain amount to local government, will it be wholly in the hands of the new Assembly to decide which councils get how much? If south Wales makes up two thirds of the membership, will it be able to vote itself more for its local authorities than north Wales will get?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman asked three questions. The answers are yes, yes and yes.
Dr. John Marek: I welcome the statement. I read on page 25 of the White Paper that regional committees will be established to ensure that the needs of all parts of Wales will be heard. That is all right as far as it goes, but my constituents will be asking whether there are any assurances that a fair share of resources will be provided for north Wales and not be sabotaged by the majority of south Wales.
Mr. Davies: I hardly think that that is so. There is no guarantee at the moment—with myself as, as it were, a south Walean Member of Parliament—of ensuring that there is a fair distribution of resources. That is why I have been so anxious to encourage a good working partnership with all local government.
On the previous two occasions that I have met the 22 leaders of Welsh local government, I have assured them that I want to develop a mutually agreed formula that will ensure that resources are fairly and equitably shared among all parts of Wales. Our system of proportionality, which is included in the White Paper, will ensure that all parts of Wales and all political parties are properly represented. The committee system that we are proposing will ensure that the committee of north Wales—I understand the vulnerability that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of his constituents—has a clear and distinctive voice for its people.
Ms Jackie Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposals in his statement will ensure that a situation such as the one that arose before, when the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), returned £100 million that was meant for Wales to the Treasury to support his right-wing credentials rather than spending it on essential infrastructure and investment in Wales for the people of Wales, will never happen again?
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten that lesson rather easily. Over the past 17 years, we have had Conservative rule in Wales, which has been unacceptable to the majority of people. We now have to take the opportunity of a new
776
Government who have a clear majority to ensure that the events that have been visited on us due to the unbridled ideology of the Conservative party—quite unsuited to our needs, circumstances or aspirations—are never allowed to reoccur.
Mr. David Hanson: I welcome the commitment given in the statement to regional committees, particularly for north Wales. Will my right hon. Friend give some indication of how that regional committee will relate to the rest of the Assembly? May I also take this opportunity to welcome the redundancy of several of my constituents who hold lucrative positions on quangos but who have never received a vote in Wales, and who sit on those bodies only because they have Conservative party cards?
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I am grateful, as ever, to receive his report. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), will be holding a press conference in north Wales on Thursday, when he will go into more detail about the north Wales committee. It would probably be for the convenience of the House if I were to leave it at that for the moment.
Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the voting system that he has proposed will ensure that we have fair representation in the Assembly and a more consensual form of politics, which deserves to be supported by all parties in Wales—not least the Conservative party, which secured no seats but received 20 per cent. of the votes at the general election?
Mr. Davies: I agree. Rather than standing outside the locked doors of the Welsh Grand Committee pleading to be let in, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) would do rather better to try to persuade the Conservative party to adopt a policy of proportional representation. The proposals that we are putting forward commanded the unanimous support of the Labour party in Wales. I am pleased that they received also the support—qualified though it is—of both the Liberal Democrats in Wales and, as I understand it, Plaid Cymru. That shows that it is possible to build a cross-party consensus, which points the way to more mature, sensible politics.
Mr. Oliver Letwin rose—
Madam Speaker: It is my impression that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) did not enter the Chamber until the Secretary of State either had finished his statement or was well into his delivery. I make it clear to new Members that I call upon hon. Members to question a statement only if they have been in the Chamber to hear that statement. That is common sense, and it is a courtesy to whoever makes the statement.
Mr. Letwin: Madam Speaker, I was in the Chamber for the Secretary of State's statement and during the observations by the shadow Secretary of State. I then left the Chamber for a few seconds, and returned.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I shall call the hon. Member for West Dorset to ask a question. However, I assure hon. Members that I have very good eyesight,

777
and that I make a note of all those who leave the Chamber, as I did in the case of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce).
Mr. Letwin: In light of the Secretary of State's various remarks about sovereignty, are there any circumstances in which primary legislation or powers given to the Secretary of State or others under primary legislation would be used to overrule decisions of the Welsh Assembly?
Mr. Davies: It is a matter of fact that the House is sovereign. It can do whatever it wishes, and it may be that, from time to time, it will override decisions taken by the Welsh Assembly. I think that that would be bad for government and bad for democracy. However, as long as our constitutional arrangements exist in their present form—and our proposals are compatible with the House's remaining sovereign—that is what will occur.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) contributed a highly pertinent article to The Times on, among other things, Welsh representation in Europe. Throughout his statement, my right hon. Friend referred to the voice of Wales in Europe. Will he be clear how that will differ from the existing arrangements?
Mr. Davies: We do not have a Welsh Assembly at present, and it will clearly make a difference when we do. When that Assembly is created, a provision will allow its executive members to discuss with the British delegation the views taken by that delegation and the arguments presented on behalf of the United Kingdom. If there are matters of particular relevance to Wales and to Scotland, when there is a Scottish Assembly, the Assemblies could assist the respective Secretaries of State—who have particular territorial responsibilities—in reflecting the views of Scotland and Wales more vigorously.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Secretary of State intend to stand for the new Assembly, if it is
778
created? He might as well do so, because, after he has given away most of his powers to that Assembly, he will not have much of a role to perform here as Secretary of State for Wales.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm also that, including the cost of the referendum, the new Assembly will cost £42 million in the first year, plus £20 million for each successive year? Therefore, in its first four-year term, the new Assembly will cost more than £100 million.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the people of Wales will want that money not to be wasted on a new Assembly building, but spent on improved housing? Does he agree that they will want to see that money spent not on new politicians, but on more teachers for Welsh youngsters; not on more bureaucracy and civil servants, but on more hospitals and nurses? If a spare £100 million is sloshing around in the system, let it be spent on providing real services for Wales, and not just on another tier of government that will cause discord and conflict among Westminster, the Assembly and local authorities.
While the prospect of seeing the Secretary of State silenced is very attractive, the £100 million cost to the taxpayer is too much. The Assembly would be not "A Voice for Wales" but a vice on Wales, which would squeeze money out of services and spend it on new, useless and wasteful bureaucracy.
Mr. Davies: I can now understand why the leader of the Conservative party has decided that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) shall not lead for the Conservative party in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed Jonathan Evans, who failed to win a seat in the House at the last election, as the Conservatives' official spokesperson in Wales.
As to my own political future, that is a matter that I shall discuss with my party and my constituents. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he and I were to stand for the Assembly, I think that my chances of election would be rather greater than his.
We do not propose to construct a new building for the Assembly, or to create more bureaucracy in a democratic Wales or more civil servants; so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's figures do not add up.

Points of Order
4.45 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to you, and thank you for calling me during questions on the Welsh statement. I left the Chamber during the statement to get a copy of that statement, which became available to hon. Members as the Secretary of State rose.
I consulted the White Paper, and asked a question which, because of the way in which it was framed, the Secretary of State answered with the words "yes, yes and yes". Hon. Members asked many questions about the White Paper that could be answered simply by reading that document. Hon. Members often do not have the paperwork to which our constituents assume we would have access.
Would it not be simpler to make the papers available five minutes before a statement is delivered, or allow attendants to bring the papers into the House? We could then see what is being said, and perhaps matters could progress faster.
Madam Speaker: It is for the Secretary of State to determine what papers will be made available. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is an experienced parliamentarian, and I think that he made the point himself: hon. Members did not question the White Paper today. We will debate that document later. Today, we questioned the statement that was made by the Secretary of State. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman had no reason to leave the Chamber to get a copy of the White Paper, which will be debated in a few days' time.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Does the Secretary of State for
780
Wales understand hon. Members' concern about his declaration that Parliament will remain sovereign but will not have the opportunity to question someone who supposedly represents Wales—the Secretary of State—because the Assembly will seemingly have sovereign powers in Wales?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me: it is a point of argument. When we debate the White Paper, perhaps I shall call the hon. Gentleman and he might put those questions to Government Front Benchers.
Mr. Tim Collins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you provide some guidance as to the normal seating arrangements in this place? I know that you gave a ruling on that subject a few weeks ago. I understand that hon. Members who support the governing party sit on the Government side of the House. Given that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has joined the Cabinet Committee, should not Liberal Democrat Members sit with Government Members?
Madam Speaker: Hon. Members may sit where they think they will be most comfortable.
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to try your patience yet again, but, before I apply for an Adjournment debate on the matter of the arms trade with Indonesia, I wonder whether you have any information as to whether the Government intend to make a statement on what appears to be a change of policy regarding the arms trade with that country.
Madam Speaker: I must disappoint the hon. Member. No, I have not been informed by the Government that they are seeking to make a statement on that matter—although I heard the hon. Lady on the radio at 1 o'clock this afternoon.

Water Charges (Amendment)
4.48 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to prohibit the use by water undertakers of rateable values as a basis for charging from 31st March 1998; to provide for charging by water undertakers in accordance with council tax bands; and for connected purposes.
It is a well-known fact that, while we may do without food—and some of us could certainly eat less—no one can do without wholesome water for very long. That most essential commodity is often taken for granted. Since the privatisation of the water authorities, for a variety of reasons, water and sewerage charges have risen relentlessly and continually. They now represent a significant part of most household budgets—indeed, some families in my constituency spend almost 10 per cent. of their net income on water charges.
The original charging system, which was based on the old rateable values of properties, will cease to be used after April 2000. The Government are now undertaking a review—among many other reviews—of the water charging system in England and Wales. In Scotland, however, the council tax banding system is already used to calculate sewerage and water charges. Surely what is good enough for Scotland is good enough for England and Wales.
During recent years, the installation of water meters, mainly in new properties and through schemes conducted by the water companies themselves, has reached less than 10 per cent. of households in England and Wales. Thus more than 90 per cent. of households are still paying water charges based on the old rateable values of their property. Some of those figures are now 25 years old. Water and sewerage charges must be paid for, but the basis of such charges must be fair and have widespread support. There should be no compulsory water metering for essential household use, but conservation demands that any charging system should promote the efficient use of water, and thus metering for heavy users of non-essential water must be an integral part of any future charging system.
The existence of monopoly suppliers in each region for such an essential commodity means that national charging systems must be fair, not only among individual customers of each water company, but among the companies themselves, so that the huge disparities between water charge payments in the south-west and those in most other parts of the country do not continue. A new system for charging must take account of that innate unfairness, particularly to those living in the south-west of England. The charges levied by South West Water have risen by some 75 per cent. in real terms from
782
1989 to 1997, while the average rise throughout the rest of the country was only 42 per cent. Not only does the south-west pay the highest water charges, but it is an area of households with low incomes and above average unemployment, and it has more elderly residents than most other areas.
The Bill proposes that the future charging system for unmetered water should be based on council tax bands, with meters being available as a choice to the consumer. Indeed, there should be an ability to switch from one form of charging to another, to allow for householder preference. The introduction of a system of charging based on council tax bands would be well understood by customers. It would be cheap and easy to install and to administer, and if properly structured, would broadly reflect the use of water. It is likely that it would promote metering in bands E to H. Customers in bands A to D would probably see a reduction in their bill. Such proposals would, therefore, encourage conservation by high users, while protecting low-income consumers from the present high charges that are levied on them.
A system based on council tax bands could also include the ability to give single-adult households a 25 per cent. discount, and households on very low incomes a rebate, in the same way as under the council tax system. That would provide a much fairer distribution of the charges that have to be made, without deterring further metering. There would be administrative savings, as councils could collect water charges on an agency basis. That would cut out duplication, and householders would be able to see clearly the relative costs of different local services. It has been estimated that the complete metering of all properties could take up to 20 years and cost over £2 billion. Thus an alternative system must be adopted in the period between 2000 and that time.
The Bill could make a substantial difference to many people, without removing the option of metering, and at the same time tackle the inherent unfairness in the present system. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colin Breed. Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Andrew George, Ms Candy Atherton, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Mr. Simon Hughes.

Water Charges (Amendment)
  WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Colin Breed accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to prohibit the use by water undertakers of rateable values as a basis for charging from 31st March 1998; to provide for charging by water undertakers in accordance with council tax bands; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January, and to be printed [Bill 53].
Orders of the Day

  Social Security Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should announce that the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has been selected for debate.
  4.54 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Reforming the welfare state to meet the needs of the 21st century is one of the biggest challenges facing the Government, but after fewer than three months we have already made significant progress. The Bill is another important step forward.
  One of the key challenges that we face in reforming welfare is to build a modern, fair and efficient welfare service that commands the support of everyone in our society. The way in which social security is delivered at the moment is resented by the public who pay for it, the clients who use it, and the staff who run it. The Bill lays the foundations for transforming the future delivery of welfare and eradicating the failures of the past.
  The Government are committed to the creation of a modern welfare state to help rebuild a strong and cohesive society—a society in which opportunities and responsibilities are common to all, a society in which everyone has a stake and no one is excluded. We are redefining welfare as an active hand-up, not just a passive hand-out of benefit. We are creating a modern welfare system, which will encourage financial independence while simultaneously promoting social cohesion and well-being; which actively supports work, saving and honesty; and which helps to tackle unjustifiable social and economic inequalities.
  For too long, the welfare system has excluded people from the rest of society, writing them off to a life on benefit, and ignoring both their aspirations and responsibilities. Now we are changing the system, so that it actively helps people to meet their responsibilities to themselves and their families.
  We have already made a start. We said that we would offer a new deal to help the young and long-term unemployed to get off benefits and into work. We are providing a new deal for the young and long-term unemployed. We are doing more. Lone mothers have previously been excluded from those opportunities, as have those with ill health or disabilities. We are extending opportunities to them, too—I launched the first phase of our new deal for lone mothers only yesterday. We said that we would develop a national child care strategy to help parents, especially women, to balance family and working life. We are implementing a radical programme of measures that make child care an integral part of not only our social policy but our economic policy.
  We said that we would create a new framework to enable everyone—including those who are caring for people at home, perhaps an elderly or disabled relative, and those on low or intermittent incomes—to enjoy a
  784
  dignified retirement. We are conducting a wide-ranging review to achieve a consensus for change, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy a decent and secure retirement.
  We also said that we would crack down on dishonesty in the benefit system. We are taking further action to identify the true level of fraud and pressing ahead with tough measures to tackle it.
  The steps that we have taken signal a radical new approach to welfare, but for too many people, the system by which social security is delivered is fragmented, reactive, inflexible and totally confusing. People are irritated when they have to provide the same information time and again to different parts of the Department of Social Security. They are frustrated that nobody seems able to bring together all the help, information and advice that they need in one place. They are bewildered by the complexity involved in claiming benefit and sorting out child maintenance, with the cumbersome forms, different types of decision at different stages, and letters and explanations that are legalistic and hard to understand. They are exasperated by the length of time that they have to wait for bureaucratic reviews and appeals.
  It is not just the public who are irritated, frustrated and exasperated with the social security system. The staff are, too. They find it difficult to deliver the help that people need because the system does not let them. I am determined to overhaul the system that we have inherited. I want to develop a modern, integrated system that is simpler, streamlined and more efficient, and which strikes the right balance between people's rights and their responsibilities. However, the current legal structure ties us into the current problems and that is why the Bill is necessary. It lays the foundations for modernising that service.
  The Bill will pave the way for a modern, integrated service to claimants. At the moment, people are often asked to provide the same information or report the same change in circumstances several times over to different parts of the social security system. If they have told one part of the Department and not others, they risk being overpaid and having to pay back hundreds of pounds months later. That wastes the time of the public and the Department, it wastes taxpayers' money and it delivers bills that people cannot afford to pay.
  People have the responsibility to provide us with accurate and up-to-date information. We want each person to be able to give us that information just once, in a way that is convenient for them, and for us to be able to advise them how that affects all their dealings with the different parts of the Department. The Bill enables us to develop modern business processes and to maximise the benefits of modern information technology in order to do that.
  The Bill also creates a much simpler process for deciding claims. At the moment, the system is incredibly complex. Currently, 13 different types of decision are taken by six different types of decision maker. There are adjudication officers, child support officers, social fund officers, adjudicating medical practitioners, specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners and officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Sometimes, a number of people wearing those different hats will be involved in a decision relating to the benefits of one person. Sometimes, one person can be wearing a number of different hats depending on what they are doing in the

  785
  Benefits Agency on that day. That is not acceptable. Often, mistakes cannot be put right quickly, even if they are the result of a simple error, without going through a lengthy appeal process. Once a decision is made, everyone is locked into it. Let me give an example.
  Take the case of Enid, an elderly lady who made a claim to meet the cost of her late husband's funeral. Her claim was refused because of the savings that she had. When she appealed against the decision not to award her any money at all, the adjudication officer realised immediately that a mistake had been made and that she was entitled to some, but not all of the money that she had claimed. However, even though the adjudication officer and Enid both then knew that she was entitled to some money, she could not get it just because she was not entitled to the full amount that she had claimed in the first place. The only way that she could get the money was either to drop her appeal and start again or to go through the lengthy process of appealing further to a tribunal. The result was that she had to wait for more than three months before she could get the money to which everyone knew she was entitled, which created frustration all round.
  We want decisions on people's claims to be provided quickly, correctly and in a way that is easy to understand. The Bill will reduce the number of different types of decision maker from six to just one, who will act on behalf of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: All hon. Members will support the right hon. Lady's attempt to increase expedition and dispatch, but does she acknowledge that there is an independence to the current system, and, shot through with anomalies though the system may be, some people are worried that the Bill will erode that independence? Will she address that point?
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. People applying for benefits want accountability for decisions made when they first make the claim and, if their claim is not accepted, they want an independent appeals process. The Bill seeks to guarantee both—an initial system for making a decision that is accountable, focused, clear and uncomplicated, and then the opportunity for everyone who wants to challenge that decision, which will be made on behalf of the Secretary of State rather than by a plethora of different people wearing different hats or by the same person wearing different hats, to appeal by means of a system that they can understand and which is genuinely independent. Therefore, we hope to deal with both those points.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: While the right hon. Lady is on the case of Enid and her problems, will she deal with clause 70, under which someone in Enid's position, who may not be able to discern exactly when her husband died, will have her entitlement to benefit for a past period curtailed from three months to one month, which will directly hurt and affect that person? Will the right hon. Lady explain how that will work?
  Ms Harman: It is not that Enid did not know when her husband died. She knew when her husband died, but she
  786
  claimed the full amount when she was entitled to only part of it. Her claim for the full amount was refused and she appealed, when she should simply have been allowed to claim a partial amount.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Returning to clause 70 and the reduction from three months to one month for a backdated claim, when a person is bereaved, particularly having been married for many years, shock and unhappiness may mean that she does not make a claim in time. In those circumstances, particularly for elderly people who have lost a loved one after many years of marriage, may one month not be enough time? Should not there be more flexibility rather than the draconian measure in clause 70?
  Ms Harman: We do not want a system that does not help a bereaved person to make a claim at the right time, but which allows a claim made 12 months late to be backdated. We want people to have the right information at the right time. In that respect, bereavement counselling is important. Data need to be shared, so that when someone dies, the DSS can ensure that the right benefits are received there and then, rather than that the system should go wrong, resulting in claims having to be backdated.
  The Bill will reduce the number of decision makers from six to just one, who will act on behalf of the Secretary of State. It will allow decisions to be processed automatically, leading to the quicker receipt of the accurate amount of benefit, and it will enable staff to take an early second look at disputed decisions and to correct any errors there and then, without affecting the claimant's right to have an appeal heard by a tribunal if he or she is still not satisfied.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will my right hon. Friend comment on clause 2? I am concerned in case inaccurate information is fed into the computer and claimants do not realise that they have an opportunity to dispute a decision. The resolution of such disputes may take some time. What processes would be in train to cope with such a problem?
  Ms Harman: It is important at all times to ensure that the receipt of information is correctly recorded and that it is correctly acted on, because people should have to give the information only once. The Bill provides the legal framework to allow data sharing between different parts of the Department. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: further work needs to be done to improve the process of checking information and the quality of decision making. That is one part of the jigsaw puzzle. Ensuring that the information given is correctly recorded and that the right decision is made is very important.
  Audrey Wise: I understand and accept the need to use advanced technology, but the terminology used in the Bill suggests that the decision will be made by the computer. That causes me considerable anxiety. I do not believe that we should use computers as a substitute for civil servants. The Bill does not say that decisions will be made by civil servants aided by the computer: it refers to decisions made by the computer.
  Ms Harman: That is a legal technicality to allow computer printouts to be used in court proceedings.

  787
  I assure my hon. Friend that we are trying to harness new technology to provide a better service for people who use the social security system and for the staff who work in it.
  I was in the benefits office in Brighton the other week, where I saw a piece of carbon paper. There was new technology on the desk of the person assessing the claims; she was writing letters using carbon paper. I do not lead a sheltered life, but it is a long time since I have seen a piece of carbon paper used in what is supposed to be a modern, up-to-date, efficient service. I said to her, "Is that a piece of carbon paper?" and she said, "Yes. I'm very lucky, aren't I, it's a new piece of carbon paper and everyone else in the office is trying to get it off me."
  We cannot run a modern, efficient service by old-fashioned work methods, because that undermines the quality of people's work. We must have a sound legal framework to ensure that we improve the quality of service. The thrust of the Bill is to provide that legal framework and to give people who claim benefits a better service, so that instead of resenting the system, they support it. That is not the present position.
  We want to enable staff to take an early second look at disputed decisions, and to correct any errors there and then rather than wait for the appeal process. At the moment, decision making on applications for budgeting loans from the social fund is unnecessarily complex. When the social fund was introduced, the idea was that it should be a simple, discretionary application of common sense, but it has not turned out like that. The current system is confusing for customers and time-consuming for staff.
  I shall give an example of a family on benefit, whose washing machine breaks down and who cannot afford to get it fixed. They apply for a budgeting loan of £80 for the repair. It is a simple matter, but they must complete a 20-page application form. They have to answer questions that may have nothing to do with their application, because by statute the form must cover both loans and grants, each of which has different requirements for an award. Staff are required by statute to consider which member of the family the washing machine is for, why and how badly it is needed. Staff are also required by statute to use their discretion to judge whether the requirements for a grant rather than for a loan have been satisfied, even though the applicant has not applied for a grant. Only when they have decided that the requirements for a grant have not been satisfied can they use their discretion to judge whether the original loan application is of high enough priority to receive an award.
  The Bill will enable the current confusing system to be replaced with a modern fact-based approach. That will enable staff to reach quicker decisions, which are easier for customers to understand.
  The Bill will enable us to provide a streamlined and straightforward system for claimants who appeal against decisions to an independent tribunal. I know that many hon. Members are concerned about the independent appeal tribunal system. At the moment, the system is slow, complex and cumbersome. Appeals take on average six months to be resolved: many take more than a year, and some take two and a half years.
  The week before last, I sat in on a number of tribunals. The first person whom I sat next to in the waiting room was a woman with severe rheumatoid arthritis. She had waited two and a half years for her appeal against the
  788
  decision on her benefit to be heard by the appeal tribunal. She had no idea why it had taken so long. She was suddenly called in at short notice. Appeals take far too long.
  Each year, 20,000 people appeal against a decision on their claim for income support, even though they have no chance of success, possibly because they already receive the full amount and no further award can be made. Those 20,000 hopeless appeals proceed through the system and delay other cases, at a cost of £5 million a year. They go to a three-person tribunal, only to be told that they never had a chance because the law had been clearly applied to the undisputed facts of their case.
  There is no independent right of appeal on national insurance decisions, except to the High Court on a point of law, which is inaccessible to most people. We want people to have access to a quick, straightforward process for appealing disputed decisions. The Bill will rationalise and clarify the appeals procedure and significantly reduce waiting times. If any hon. Members are not convinced of the need to reduce waiting times, I suggest that they talk to anyone in an appeal tribunal waiting room and discover the problem for themselves.
  The Bill will replace the five separate tribunal jurisdictions. We do not need five: we need only one, but we have the social security appeal tribunal, the child support appeal tribunal, the medical appeal tribunal, the disability appeal tribunal and the vaccine damage tribunal. They are held in the same rooms in the same building, but they wear different hats. We want to replace those five separate tribunal jurisdictions with a single independent body.
  We want to remove the rigid requirement for all cases to be heard by three-person tribunals, and instead enable the president of the appeal tribunal to draw additional members from a panel of experts if and when the need arises. We want to allow tribunals to be able to correct their own mistakes, and thus cut out the time wasted when cases go to commissioners unnecessarily. If the tribunal and the appellant realise that something has gone wrong and that it can be sorted out, why require cases to go to the commissioners? Mistakes should be put right there and then. We want to introduce a new right of appeal against decisions in respect of national insurance contributions. That is important, because it is quite wrong that there is no appeal except to the High Court.
  The proposals in the Bill will also enable those 20,000 hopeless appeals each year to be sifted out and dealt with quickly, as they are in all other jurisdictions, such as the county court and industrial tribunals. We do not want those appeals to delay cases that have a genuine ground for appeal. In future, any hopeless cases will be identified early, and the people concerned will be given a full explanation of the decision at first instance and why it was taken. If they are dissatisfied with that explanation, their appeal can go forward, but the president of the independent appeals tribunal service will be able to choose to constitute a one-person tribunal to decide the appeal if he or she thinks that that is appropriate.
  The flexibility of choosing between a three-person, two-person or one-person tribunal is necessary. We do not want to take away people's right to appeal: we want to guarantee their right, but if there are no disputed facts and the law is clear—for example, they have received the maximum amount of benefit—we want to ensure that

  789
  the appeal is heard by one person who can sort out the problem. That will enable such cases to be dealt with more speedily in future. There is no point people going through the whole appeals procedure, perhaps waiting more than two years for an appeal in front of three people, when there is no dispute over the facts and their claim has clearly been decided correctly.
  When people are told by tribunals that their appeals have failed and that they never had a chance of success in the first place, they sometimes say, "I wish that someone had told me. If they had, I would not have wasted two years waiting, and taking the bus to the tribunal." It is unacceptable that people are routinely being kept waiting up to two years for their appeals to be heard, and I am determined to improve the system to ensure that, in future, they receive the fair and swift service that they have a right to expect.
  Not only will my proposals streamline the current process; I shall assume personal responsibility for the administration of the appeals system. I shall set demanding targets to shorten the time that it takes for appeals to be heard, and for appellants to be told the outcome. When we have set up the new tribunal service and the new administrative system that will underpin it, I shall publish those targets and report on the results. People must know that there is a time limit within which appeals will be heard, and we must ensure that that limit is stuck to. At present, there is no time limit.
  The essential independence of the current system will, however, be reinforced. The Lord Chancellor, as head of the judiciary, will appoint not only the president of the appeal tribunals but all the members of the panel. Currently, the Lord Chancellor appoints the president, who then appoints the panel members. All the measures that I have described will help us to rationalise our dealings with claimants, providing them with a simpler, more streamlined service and cutting out unnecessary duplication and frustrating delays.
  Let me now refer to the second major strand of the Bill, which focuses on reinforcing people's responsibilities in relation to the welfare system. The national insurance scheme is based on rights and responsibilities: it provides people with rights to contributory benefits and, in return, expects individuals and employers to meet their responsibility to make contributions in order to fund those benefits. We expect everyone to meet their responsibilities, and we want to help them to do so. At present, however, a minority of employers are deliberately shirking their responsibilities. Those employers are not playing fair with their employees, who lose out on their benefit rights, and they are not playing fair with the large majority of employers who pay their fair share.
  The Bill will make those employers pay up. It will make national insurance contributions payable on non-cash payments given to employees through restrictive covenants, which have become an increasingly common method of avoiding contributions. It will replace the current outdated and virtually unused criminal offence of non-compliance with cash fines similar to those imposed by the Inland Revenue for tax evasion. We are aligning the two systems. The Bill will provide for new, tougher criminal penalties in serious cases of deliberate evasion and fraud. We need to distinguish between those who are simply not paying and would be encouraged to do so by
  790
  the introduction of fines, and those who are involved in heavy fraud. We shall also allow the Contributions Agency to take distraint action to recover debts. That, too, aligns the contributions recovery process with the Inland Revenue's tax recovery process.
  Those measures will make people who would otherwise try to avoid meeting their responsibilities think twice. In return, we are making it easier for employers to pay their fair share, by aligning the ways in which certain benefits and expenses are dealt with in the tax and national insurance systems, removing the need for separate record keeping and accounting for national insurance purposes.
  Three further changes in the national insurance scheme that are not currently included in the Bill will be introduced in the form of Government amendments. The first will prevent funded unapproved retirement benefit schemes, which are little more than deferred cash bonuses, from being used for the avoidance of national insurance contributions. The second will make it easier for national insurance contributions to be charged on the provision of vouchers by employers who pay their employees by means of such vouchers rather than cash. I call that the Great Yarmouth amendment, because it was in Great Yarmouth that it was brought to my attention by two hon. Members—one was my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright)—that the owners of a residential care home for the elderly were paying their staff £60 a week in cash, an amount just below the national insurance contribution limit, and £70 a week in Asda vouchers. The intention was clearly to avoid national insurance contributions.
  Under the current rules, payment in Asda vouchers rather than cash enables people such as the owners of that home to avoid their national insurance liability, thanks to the previous Government's abolition of the Truck Acts. Moreover, that method of payment means that the employees have no contribution records for the period of their employment, which jeopardises their rights to national insurance benefits. They will not have contributed to the contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, to incapacity benefit, to maternity allowance, to widows' benefit or to their basic state pension. The Bill will wipe out that practice. Child care vouchers, however, will remain exempt from national insurance contributions for the time being, because we are looking at their use in the context of our work on developing national child care strategy.
  The third new amendment relating to national insurance contributions will align tax and national insurance rules with regard to company share options.
  Given the relatively short time that has elapsed since the general election, we have not been able to work through the details of those measures in time for them to be introduced, but we shall be tabling amendments in time to allow full discussion in Committee and with outside organisations.
  The Bill also provides for some changes that were announced in the Budget, and for a number of other minor changes. They include the setting of a new common time limit of one month for backdating benefit claims—
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I am glad that the Secretary of State has finally got round to dealing with that. The previous Government proposed to reduce the limit to three months; but, unlike the previous

  791
  Government, the present Government—they are called new Labour, but perhaps they ought to be called new Tory—will include the backdating of council tax benefits and housing benefits in their proposal, a step that the previous Government would not take. I assume that they knew, as everyone else knows, that the limit for rent arrears and council tax arrears would not be cut to a month. How on earth will the Secretary of State explain to people who are caught in that trap how the Government can claim to be caring for them, when in fact they are stealing from them?
  Ms Harman: We want to ensure that the system is not run on the basis of getting things wrong and then backdating to sort them out. We want to ensure that the system gets it right first time, and that there is a common backdating procedure for all claims. I am sure that the hon. Lady welcomes the fact that we did not proceed with the extension of housing benefit restrictions relating to single-room rent to those aged between 25 and 59. We have said that we shall keep within the Department's spending totals for the next two years. The proposal to which I referred is one of the measures that contributed to our being able not to extend those restrictions.
  Ms Cunningham: The point is that, by refusing the backdating, the Government will put people whose rent or council tax arrears have built up into an appalling position. With respect, nothing has been said about how that will be dealt with in practice when it happens—as it will.
  Ms Harman: The change will not come into force for some time. When it does, we shall be working to ensure that we get it right, and that we do not run the system on the basis of backdating.
  We shall also complete the alignment of child benefit rates for lone parents with those for two-parent families, remove the unequal treatment of women who receive statutory maternity pay and those who receive maternity allowance when they subsequently claim benefit because of illness, and tidy up the national insurance rules in a number of areas.
  Audrey Wise: Perhaps my right hon. Friend would care to explain more fully the reasoning behind clause 68, which I imagine is encompassed by her statement, which aligns child benefit payments for one-parent and two-parent families. Will she forgive me if I think that that is more in the nature of a cut for lone parents than anything else?
  Ms Harman: The manifesto on which my hon. Friend and I were both elected was clear. It said that our approach would be to ensure opportunities for lone parents to work, and to ensure that they would be much better off than they and their children could ever be on benefit. In our first Budget, we have backed that manifesto commitment with a £200 million programme of opportunities for lone mothers. The research shows that, on average, lone mothers and their children are likely to be £50 a week better off in work than they are on benefit. Therefore, we have said that the way in which we shall proceed is through welfare to work and that we shall invest to provide lone mothers with opportunities, to ensure that they can do what they want to do.
  792
  It is important that we listen to what is being said by Gingerbread and the National Council for One Parent Families. Before the election and since our Budget and all these announcements, lone mothers have said that they want to move off benefits and into work, and that they want the opportunities that they have been denied for so long. They welcome our approach, which is to invest in opportunities and in child care, so that they do not have to struggle with living on benefit, but can have the same opportunities as everyone else.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the right hon. Lady agree that her proposition is based on the premise that everything in the garden will be perfect? If the system does not get it wrong, it does not matter that people can claim only up to one month after a mistake, or that we are reducing benefits for single parents, because they are all going to have jobs. Does the Minister not realise that everything in the garden will not be fine, even after five or 10 years of new Labour, and that we need to cater for the situation where the Government or the system get it wrong?
  Ms Harman: We are making the choices based on what people are saying to us about how they want the system to work. Lone mothers want to be in work, with in-work benefits. They do not want to depend fully on income support. Therefore, they support our choice of investment. They understand that we have said that we shall keep within the departmental spending totals for the next two years. They know that we are making choices and that the choice we have made is to invest in opportunities for lone mothers to go out to work, just as married women do. They back that approach. That is what lone mothers say to me in my constituency—they want to be better off than they can ever be on benefit and they want to support themselves and their children.
  Therefore, we are taking a particular approach towards changing the system, which is not about distributing small amounts of money to an ever-growing number of people—the one in five households that have no one in work and are therefore supported by the other four households, living on low income and benefits, with a sense of hopelessness and despair. We have made a choice. We have set about the problem in our first Budget. Choices have had to be made, but we are investing to provide opportunities, and that is what those people—who, unlike us, are trapped on benefits—want. They want us to invest public money, to provide them with opportunities.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Oliver Letwin rose—
  Ms Harman: I have given way to the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman, so I will conclude my comments. Perhaps they can catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye as the debate proceeds.
  The Bill is a further important step in the radical reform of the welfare state. It lays the foundations for transforming the delivery of welfare. It marks the beginning of the end of the old system, which excluded people from the rest of society, writing them off to a life on benefit and ignoring their aspirations and responsibilities. It is the beginning of a modern service,

  793
  which will actively help people to meet their responsibilities to themselves and to their families; a service that will command the support of social security staff, claimants and the public.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: This Bill is of great interest to the whole House, but perhaps its antecedents should be spoken about a little today. In welcoming the speech of the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women, I want to pick up on two or three points that she made.
  The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): The Conservatives are not opposed to the Bill, then?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: That is correct.
  The Secretary of State talked about steps being taken to demonstrate a radical new approach to welfare. I agree, except on the point as to who actually raised the matter. The point about the streamlining and speeding up of appeals is well taken and well made. I do not think that any hon. Member would want to differ with it—[Interruption.] The Scottish nationalists can speak for themselves. I speak for the Conservative party. Again, her comments on administration changes were well made and well taken, but I refer her to the Green Paper. Its foreword, written by her predecessor, states:
  "My aim is to modernise social security administration … This involves simplifying rules, changing traditional practices and making best use of new technology. It also means providing incentives for those who use our services to help us get things right. A key factor is the legal framework for decisions and appeal.
  I believe that it is possible to improve significantly administration of our decisions and appeals arrangements."
  Listening to the opening remarks of the Secretary of State, it seemed that, in some cases, it was almost as though they were plucked directly from that foreword—there were some embellishments, but they were essentially the same words.
  When I examined the Bill when it first came out a week and a half or so ago, I thought for a moment, looking at the size of it and the number of clauses, that the Minister for Welfare Reform had sat with a wet towel around his head since the election, working out his great welfare reforms—that is what we were told that his great role was going to be. However, when I got into the Bill, it was a case of déjà vu. I began to see more and more things that we had already discussed before the election.
  When I examined the 1997 Green Paper to which I have referred and re-read the Bill. I realised that this debate would be about the ground work and the pre-legislation work of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). In many ways, the Bill should be touted as the "Peter Lilley memorial Bill" because, in essence, that is what it is all about. The Secretary of State is remembering her predecessor in a most generous way. She is rather like the man who started shaving with an electric razor and liked it so much that he bought the company. She has had the great idea of swallowing hook, line and sinker a Bill that is sitting ready to go and then assuming ownership of it.
  794
  This reform package raises a number of issues. The key issue that underscores the whole Bill is the change programme. The big question is not just who owns the Bill, but whether the Secretary of State and the Government now fully support the change programme announced by my right hon. Friend, her predecessor, when he set in train the Green Paper and all the other aspects of change, many of which seem to flow through the Bill, although many others are still outstanding. Perhaps I could give the Secretary of State the opportunity to say that she agrees with the change programme as announced. If she wants to make that announcement now, perhaps she will do so. No? She does not want to intervene to make that clear.
  Perhaps it is not surprising that the Secretary of State does not want to say that that is the case. After all, the change programme was designed to get 25 per cent. efficiency savings from the annual budget and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made it clear that
  "significant further running cost savings cannot be achieved just by more pruning or working harder"
  and that
  "we should aim to absorb both inflationary increases in pay and costs and increasing workloads over the next three years. That means aiming to increase productivity by 25 per cent."
  I assume, as the Secretary of State has produced this Bill today, that she will want to tell us—which she does not—that she agrees with that statement and that it is, therefore, now a driving force in the Department. I am sure that the Minister for Welfare Reform agrees with it. I hope that she will make it clear that she agrees with the basic principle and with the 25 per cent. efficiency savings target.
  Perhaps I can put it another way. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to say that she agrees with that statement, and I am keen that she should make a statement about this, does she perhaps agree with her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who declared, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made his announcement, that such measures would ensure that the benefit system
  "is pushed past breaking point",
  with
  "fewer people, longer delays, more mistakes and a worse service"?
  That was his direct response to the Green Paper proposals in February 1996. Does the right hon. Lady agree with her predecessor? It is important to know the Government's starting point for their changes to the social security budget and welfare generally. It is reasonable to ask the right hon. Lady whether she agrees with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden or with her shadow predecessor, who clearly challenged many of the measures that she now proposes to implement.
  The trouble is that, when Labour Members were in opposition, they publicly opposed such changes. We later discovered that, in private, there was some dispute on the matter. Perhaps I can put the question another way. One of the Secretary of State's colleagues, who was shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wrote to her shadow predecessor, who is now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, stating that, far from agreeing with him, such measures were likely to lead to problems with costs. However, it turned out that the Treasury team thought that the savings could and should be made. That was concluded

  795
  privately, behind closed doors, and was not made known to the public. Where does the Secretary of State stand on that and with whom does she agree?
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman has read that in the papers.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: We may have read about it in the papers. We seem to learn most of what goes on in Government circles in the papers rather than in the House. Hon. Members must be careful because I understand that Madam Speaker has made it clear that perhaps a little more should be done in the House rather than through the papers.
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is talking about history.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I hope that we are talking about history. It bodes ill for the future if such matters are not raised in the House.
  The Government's approach is cynical. The Bill implements many of the changes that were proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and were totally disowned by Labour Members when they were in opposition. In opposition, their public face said no to the proposals but, in government, they absorb, accept and even claim ownership of those proposals. It is important to see such measures being accepted, and we shall not oppose the changes because most of them are ours. I want to know exactly where the Government intend to go and how they propose to achieve the objectives that were set by my right hon. Friend.
  We have some reservations about the Bill's detail and we shall raise those in Committee. However, I should like to flag up one or two matters to reserve our position in Committee and on Report. The Bill's detail contains some significant changes and we are concerned about those because the detail was not set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. Many of the Bill's key clauses and changes leave a large amount of the detail to be decided by regulation, and we are worried about that. When I was on the Government Benches, I was concerned about the amount of legislation that our Bills left to regulation. I spoke about that several times and I raise it again with the Secretary of State and ask her to look carefully at the matter.
  The regulation process stops Parliament properly scrutinising changes that subsequently lead to problems. Much of the social security budget has always been plagued by the constant need for change because so much was wrong at the start. I ask the right hon. Lady to undertake to look at those areas which can be changed by regulation to see whether they can be changed only by legislation.
  Tribunals currently consist of three people with a legally qualified chairman. The Secretary of State has spoken about that. The Bill intends that future panels will consist of one, two or three people to replace the legally qualified chairman. The analysis of responses by Roy Sainsbury in the Green Paper to which I have referred, states:
  "In general, the decision making processes of the three-person tribunal were considered superior to decision making by a single person. And there was little support for the proposal to reserve legal expertise for appropriate cases."
  The analysis also found that
  "Legally-qualified decision makers had the advantage of training and experience in judicial methods, of considering and weighing the evidence, establishing facts, identifying the relevant law to be applied in the case, and making a decision based fully and only on the facts and the law."
  796
  I hope that that will be addressed by Ministers with responsibility for such matters and that they will weigh up those concerns and reservations.
  I shall deal now with the key clauses relating to the extension of power and authority of the Secretary of State. No doubt Secretaries of State, and I suspect that the right hon. Lady is no exception, are pleased to have extra responsibilities. However, that raises serious questions, which need to be examined in detail. Clause 1 aims to transfer the functions of the adjudication officers, social fund officers and child support officers to the Secretary of State. Most benefit claims are decided by adjudication officers, who are legally independent of Ministers and departmental managers when they make decisions, although they are employed and managed by the agencies.
  The Green Paper proposed that, in future, the law should not prescribe the status of the decision maker for different types of decision, and that has been reflected in the Bill. I am reasonably pleased to note that. However, concerns about the independence of first-tier decision makers do not seem to have been reflected in the Bill. I hope that that will be addressed. There are genuine concerns about independence. To maintain a high degree of public confidence, monitoring and reporting on the standard of decision making should continue to be carried out by a body that is independent of the social security agencies. I hope that the Government will address the concerns about that because they are felt not just by Opposition Members. I am sure that there will be representations from others about it.
  There are also concerns about clause 10, which aims to simplify the mechanism for decisions to be reviewed and allows the Secretary of State to revise decisions. However, the Secretary of State's new remit, which includes the circumstances and the period within which a decision can be revised, is set to be determined by regulations. We shall examine the clauses to ensure that the shift to single-tier decision making enhances the system rather than causing chaos. Proper independence and accountability must remain.
  I have mentioned the key clauses that we shall look at, but I am especially concerned about some other controversial clauses. I shall deal now with political elements, some of which the Secretary of State did not mention. The Conservative legislation which I have mentioned, and which started with the Green Paper and other documents as part of the programme for change, was vehemently attacked by Labour Members when they were in opposition. However, they are now driving through much of that proposed legislation. That is fine, but let us deal with some of the clauses that seem to be of greatest interest. I wonder how many of the Secretary of State's Back Benchers know about the degree to which Labour opposed such clauses before it came into government.
  Clause 23 allows regulations to be made to permit benefit to be withheld temporarily where claimants have not provided the necessary information. Little has been said about that. The measure is designed to shift responsibility to the individual to prove a benefit claim and to suspend benefit, and it was condemned by Labour Members, including the Secretary of State. I gather that she argued that requiring more evidence to substantiate a benefit claim

  797
  was a hindrance, not a help, to receiving the appropriate benefit entitlement. She said:
  "putting more responsibility on claimants for the correct completion of the form, and … requiring more evidence to support claims … will deter thousands more pensioners from claiming the money to which they are entitled."—[Official Report, 19 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 947.]
  My question for the right hon. Lady is, why the sudden change of heart? What happened between opposition and government to persuade her that what she said in February was fundamentally wrong? Why has she implemented what we said was right?
  Clause 24 will allow regulations to enable the Secretary of State for Social Security to suspend benefits if people refuse to submit to a medical examination in prescribed circumstances. In opposition, Labour Members attacked the introduction of incapacity benefit. The new entitlement, which included a new medical test, was designed to ensure that it was received only by genuine applicants. We know about the problems and failures of much of that so far, especially in the appeals process. When the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) was in opposition, he said:
  "The Government's sole motive is to save money … I assure the Secretary of State that, whatever he believes, the Labour party will oppose the Bill line by line vigorously in Parliament and throughout the country."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 112–13.]
  I shall deal in a moment with the issue of who saves money and the Bill's purpose. The right hon. Lady's respected colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, also criticised the nature of the Bill. I shall not go into the details of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but it is interesting to note Labour's position at that time.
  Surely the Government's key aim in clause 24 is to save money. If so, what makes the present measure so different, so much less reprehensible than the attempt to save money in the other programme? I am intrigued about what the Minister will say when he sums up, and how he will square his present position against his previous position. Apparently, when he is not in government, saving money is not a good thing, but now that he is in government, it is a good thing. It is wonderful to see somebody turn round so easily, and we welcome any convert. In opposition, the Government were convinced, as ever, that such measures were wrong. Now they are in government, they have changed.
  Clause 35 allows regulations to be made that will permit a local authority to suspend payment of housing benefit and council tax benefit in prescribed circumstances, especially where entitlement is in doubt pending resolution of a query or appeal. The principle of the suspension of benefit was regularly attacked by those now in government when they were in opposition. When the present Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, he attacked the suspension of benefit for immigrants appealing against rejected claims for asylum. That is much the same principle. We put the asylum proposal forward, then this other, and we did not manage to enact the second. However, the Secretary of State is now taking it through.
  798
  As I said earlier, we shall not oppose the measures because we originated them, before our departure from government on 1 May. None the less, they were endlessly and constantly opposed by the right hon. and hon. Members who are now in government. [Interruption.] I do not necessarily draw the Minister for Welfare Reform into all my comments. I may come to that later. The Secretary of State and many of her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have to—[Interruption.] The Minister should quit while he thinks that he is ahead, because he ain't. I have more to say.
  We need a lot of answers. That applies in particular, I suspect, to the Secretary of State's hon. Friends on the Back Benches. They should be looking at the Bill and asking themselves how, if the Labour party opposed those ideas so strongly in opposition, it can suddenly love them so much now that it is in government.
  There was some confusion about clauses 70 and 68—
  Ms Gisela Stuart: As one of those new Members that you are so terribly concerned about, may I assure you that there is a difference between saving money for the sake of it and saving money in a system that is inherently inefficient? You left us with an inefficient system that needs modernising. You were simply cutting—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Ms Stuart: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. and hon. Members who are now, rightly, on the Opposition Benches, were cutting without looking at what was happening to the whole system. I suggest that there is a difference between what the previous Government proposed and what we propose today.
  Mr. Burns: Give her a job.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend may have a point. I must tell the hon. Lady that the only real difference is the fact that Labour Members are now on the Government Benches and we are on the Opposition Benches. If the Bill had been constructed and written by the present Government since they came to power, if they had thought of it and initiated it—even if that had been done by the Minister for Welfare Reform—she might have a point. She does not, because we proposed the same measures before our departure. I simply tell her that, even if she was so opposed to those measures before, she has quickly learnt how to swallow her words.
  Clause 70 is especially important because it was not part of our proposals. I am interested in it, and we shall tease out in Committee more detail about how it will work. Some concerns have been raised about it. As we know, the clause introduces a new time restriction on backdating social security benefit claims. The limit will be reduced from three months to one month. Clearly, that is a cost-cutting measure; the clause is designed to save money. The explanatory and financial memorandum estimates that it will save about £57 million annually, so there is no questioning it. The Government are not trying to hide the saving, because that, essentially, is what the clause is for.
  The question is why the clause was added to the Bill, although it was not originally suggested. We initiated the idea of levelling the time at three months, so the new

  799
  arrangement goes deeper than we planned. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) should examine that difference carefully.
  The measure was added because, as the Secretary of State admitted, the Labour Government do not intend to implement some of our proposed changes to housing benefit. The measure is designed in part to fund that reversal. It will affect the people whom hon. Members have said that it will, because of the decision not to change the housing benefit regulations. [Interruption.] We shall see who will be on the streets and who will not be able to afford to make a claim as a result.
  One of the concerns raised was about the problems for widows who are confused about exactly when and where claims were made. Their claims will be levelled back to one month, like everyone else's. I hope that the Government will reconsider that, because it is a hard part of the clause, which we shall examine in Committee.
  Members of the Government, when in opposition, made strong statements on the subject. On 16 July 1993, as is recorded at column 1260 of Hansard, the Minister who is to sum up said that a high take-up was essential to ensure that the poorest in our society received the meagre income to which they were entitled through the benefits system. How does he square that with the present change? I shall be interested to hear his answer when he sums up.
  The Secretary of State probably breathed a sigh of relief when I went straight to clause 70, because I had not dealt with clause 68. However, we shall come back to clause 68 now. I left it until last because it represents the biggest single change and the biggest single money-saving measure in the Bill.
  The change is not purely administrative; it is a serious change to the way in which child benefit is paid to single parents, as compared with those who are not single parents. We definitely advanced the idea, and I have often asked the Secretary of State whether she would implement it.
  The right hon. Lady knows that, in the past, she consistently opposed that idea. Many, probably most, of her right hon. and hon. Friends probably opposed it too. As I said a couple of weeks ago during the Budget debate, the right hon. Lady can be extensively quoted on the subject, especially in an interview with Polly Toynbee in The Independent, in which she said that she would not implement the measure. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, backed the right hon. Lady up by saying that Labour certainly would not implement it.
  In view of those assurances, given before the Labour party entered government, I want to know why Labour Members publicly told all the people whom they assumed would vote for them, that Labour would not take that action—indeed, that there was no chance of that happening—when, after two and a half months in government, they have implemented the scheme that we proposed. That is the very scheme that the present Secretary of State attacked, both at the time of the Budget in which we proposed it, and subsequently.
  What changed the right hon. Lady's view? It appears to me that the saving of money was probably the greatest driving force. We shall want to find out more about why she, supported by the Prime Minister, turned round and changed her mind in government.
  800
  I am intrigued, because the right hon. Lady has such a long track record on the subject. In 1990 she wrote a pamphlet called "The Family Way", which made it clear that she would never countenance such a thing were she in government. She wrote:
  "a more efficient means for raising the living standard of parents and children on welfare is a substantial increase in the lone parents' premium to child benefit and/or child benefit itself".
  I hate to drag things up from the past, because they do not always fit easily with the way people are at the moment. I simply say that such matters are important. The country and the House have a right to know what happened on the road to Damascus to persuade the right hon. Lady that what she had said should all be swept aside, and she should implement the change. It is fair enough that she should implement that change, which was our proposal, but my question is important. The one group that she has endlessly championed will, rightly, want to know the answer. Let us hear it, perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State sums up—or if the Secretary of State wants to tell us now, I shall give way to her. She does not. Okay, fair enough.
  The Chancellor has broken his bond of trust in the Budget, and now more bonds of trust are being thrown away on the route to implementation of the Bill. As I have said, the Bill contains many things that we suggested. We still want to hear answers from the Secretary of State about the change programme, and we still need to know—the House needs to know—exactly why the Government have decided to implement our proposals. I welcome the fact that that is what they intend to do, but they must give their reasons.
  The right hon. Lady talked about having secured £200 million from the Treasury through the windfall tax. It is important to note that, in clause 68 alone, the saving will dwarf what she gets from the Treasury. The sum will not be £240 million alone; she knows that new entrants are affected, so there will be a build-up to a cumulative total.
  The estimates are that, in the lifetime of this Parliament, in the four years that the arrangement is likely to run while the Labour party is in power, the saving is likely to be from £300 million to £500 million. The right hon. Lady is offering up a much bigger saving than she is getting back for the welfare-to-work proposal. She should get her civil servants to inform her about that.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, the right hon. Lady's predecessor as Secretary of State, was told that, at its peak, the measure would deliver £1.5 billion in savings back to the Treasury from the Department. It is worth examining that figure, because it represents serious savings. It alone dwarfs everything else. I welcome the major cost saving implied by the volte-face but I wonder how many Labour Back Benchers would do so.
  We intend to reserve our position in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading, until we get answers about some of the changes. I am especially concerned about clause 70, because that seems to have come out of the blue to get the Government off the hook about not implementing the housing benefit changes. I want to hear in detail in Committee the Government's estimate of who will be most affected. How do the Government intend to alleviate the hardship that will fall where they had perhaps not thought that it would?

  801
  Our position generally is logical, because it is clear that the Bill derives from the Green Paper and from other proposals by my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State. We would have implemented many of the proposals in the Bill had we been in government, and we have not changed our position publicly or privately.
  I also see the logic of the Liberal Democrats tabling a reasoned amendment, because they made it clear on several occasions that they were opposed to some of the changes, but I suspect that they may need to watch out a bit more, because the great coalitions that are being built may be thrown into jeopardy as a result of their strange opposition, which has emerged at the 11th hour, and the Chancellor and the Prime Minister may reconsider their great scheme of including the Liberal Democrats.
  The most illogical position is the Government's. Having vehemently opposed and attacked every single measure in the Bill, and especially those in clause 68, they are now implementing them all. They have an awful lot of explaining to do. The very people who so publicly opposed those programmes are lined up on the Treasury Bench proposing them. I accept that there may be one or more exceptions, but the majority of the Ministers concerned were absolutely opposed to the measures.
  To change one's opinion because of the power of the argument is one thing, but to do a policy U-turn and not offer a single explanation in one's opening speech is another; it is extremely strange, and appears to be more about misleading than about accountability. Surely we are in the realms of hypocrisy. This is the politics of convenience, because the Labour party in government is clawing around for money savings and going for the very proposals that we made and it attacked.
  The Bill marks who is finally in complete charge of the welfare reform package. I would have said that anyway, but we see from today's newspapers that the Chancellor has re-re-re-announced welfare reform as the big agenda, saying that he will drive it and that it is his great scheme. I leave the Secretary of State and her departmental colleagues to discuss with him privately who is in charge of the Department, but I could not have conceived of my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State being forced to have such a tussle with the previous Chancellor over who was running the reforms. I hope that the programme gets taken back into the Department pretty quickly, as there are far too many heads running around commanding it. The Chancellor is pulling not only the purse strings but the Department's strings as well.
  Two months into power, the Government have done at least two major U-turns: the first was taxing pensioners and increasing tax in the Budget and the second is implementing in the Bill all the measures that they previously opposed. It is clear that they would have said or done anything to gain power, and that they will now say or do anything to stay in power. It is wonderful how government and power change people so absolutely.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, while including measures which will reduce delays in, and increase the fairness of, the appeals process in social security and related areas,
  802
  or which will reduce unnecessary public expenditure, will result in a slower appeals process, with more appeals being the subject of judicial review, will make the appeals process less fair, and will discourage lone parents from working and thereby increase public expenditure on benefits."
  I want to take hon. Members back to near the beginning of May. The new Cabinet has just been announced, and the new Department of Social Security ministerial team arrives at Richmond house fresh from the general election triumph, full of bright new ideas to make a break from the past 18 years. The Ministers settle into their offices and start drawing up plans to move the welfare state into the 21st century. Then they see it—something mouldering in the corner. It already has a few cobwebs on it. Cautiously, they pick it up and read the title on the folder: "The Next Social Security Bill". A Post-it note attached to the front cover says, "We'll leave this one for you."
  That, I am afraid, is the nature of the Bill: it is a leftover, a hand-me-down, something that must be got out of the way before the new Government can get on with their own priorities. I find it hard to believe that the new Labour Social Security Ministers, for whom I have a good deal of respect, would have chosen as their first Bill such a ragbag of measures.
  Let us consider the Bill's main features. It introduces sweeping changes in the process of appeals in social security and child support. That process was the subject of a Green Paper and a so-called consultation exercise last summer and autumn. The previous Government had already implemented some of the Green Paper's proposals within two days of the end of the consultation; the Bill implements many more.
  I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not be misunderstood: we welcome any measures that would streamline social security appeals and make them fairer, but we are far from convinced that the Bill will achieve that objective. We have fundamental reservations on the three grounds of fairness, speed and independence.
  On fairness, several of the proposals seem to offend against the principles of natural justice. The first is the possibility that appeal panels may be headed by only a single decision maker, possibly without formal legal expertise. Given that even legal experts find the benefits system bewildering, that is a worrying development. Furthermore, what safeguards are in place to ensure that any prejudices of a single decision maker are not given free rein?
  Unfairness may also result from the provision that requires appeal panels not to consider matters other than the specific subject of the appeal. That will mean that even when obvious errors or misjudgments are discovered during an appeal, as happens at present, the panel will have no right to amend them. That cannot be the mark of a fair system.
  What about speed? Clearly, we would all welcome a swifter appeals process, and a few of the Bill's provisions could help with that, but for some claimants the Bill could slow the process down. Consider, for example, the Secretary of State's new power to delay the award of benefit to a successful claimant if a relevant test case is pending. How does that speed up the process of assessment?
  Consider the possibility that the new appeals process may no longer be seen to be objective, fair and independent, especially as the chief adjudication officer's

  803
  position is to be abolished. According to the Law Society, a body that would presumably not normally object to such measures, the Bill could lead to an increase in the number of cases referred to judicial review. That is surely not a recipe for quick decision making.
  We have grave misgivings about many of the proposed reforms of the appeals process.
  Mr. Desmond Browne: The hon. Gentleman refers to a provision in the Bill that he describes as requiring appeal panels not to consider any issue not raised in the appeal. I take it that he is referring to clause 13(7). In fact, that subsection does nothing of the kind that he suggests, although we have all been sent documents trying to persuade us that it does. The wording makes no such requirement.
  Mr. Webb: Clause 13(7) says:
  "an appeal tribunal need not consider any issue that is not raised by the appeal."
  If that means that the tribunal may, but need not necessarily, consider such an issue, I am happy to accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
  Mr. Browne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that my intervention arose from his observation that there was a requirement? My reference was designed to point out that no such requirement existed. Does he accept that no such requirement exists?
  Mr. Webb: If the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of clause 13 is correct, I am happy to accept his point.
  We have a range of objections to the principles of the Bill in relation to the appeals process, but our greatest reservations concern the provisions on backdating and benefit levels. On backdating, it is extraordinary that people with good cause for making a late claim will be entitled to backdate their claims by only one month, compared with the present 12 months for housing benefit and three months for many other benefits. The fact that someone has got by without benefit for more than a month is no proof that that person did not need the money.
  In the case of housing benefit, a coping strategy may be to build up rent arrears until benefit comes through. Until the benefit system is perfect, that will continue to happen. If backdating of no more than one month is allowed, any longer-term arrears will go uncleared and claimants will run the risk of losing their homes. That could lead to increased, not reduced, costs to the public purse.
  Most of all, we object to the provision to allow the Secretary of State to scrap the lone-parent addition to child benefit, a policy inherited from the previous Government. That flies in the face of statements by many Labour Members in opposition and of the direction of Government policy. For example, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), told the House:
  "one-parent benefit—because it is not means-tested—helps lone parents out of the poverty trap and into work."
  Now he proposes to abolish it. In the same debate, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury
  804
  (Mr. Smith), who then spoke for Labour on social security, said:
  "One-parent benefit in particular is a key part of any benefit-to-work strategy because it is carried through when a lone parent takes work".
  Similarly, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), who is now responsible for welfare-to-work policy, said:
  "That policy of freezing one-parent benefit runs against any rational welfare-to-work strategy and will compound other labour market difficulties faced by lone parents."—[Official Report, 20 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 205–58.]
  Many other Labour Members said things in opposition that they would not wish to disown now that they are in government. It is clear that they understand only too well that the lone-parent addition to child benefit, which the Government propose to abolish, is a benefit only to working lone parents. For those on income support, it is deducted pound for pound and, for that reason, many parents on income support do not even bother to claim it. That weekly sum gives lone parents who have got themselves off welfare and into work, which is surely the Government's objective, a little more spending power to ensure that they are better off in work and have a little more cash to spend on child care or other costs of working.
  I recognise that the Government, as the Secretary of State said, have taken other measures to improve the child care options open to lone parents. They are welcome, but their total cost of about £200 million is significantly less than expenditure on the one-parent benefit that the Government plan to abolish. Taking money out of the pockets of working lone parents to pay for child care subsidies is an odd strategy for a Government committed to welfare to work.
  Do Labour Members really want their first foray into welfare reform to be an unsatisfactory ragbag of second-hand Tory measures that make the appeals system less fair and take money out of the pockets of working lone parents? If they do not, I ask them to vote for our amendment and to replace the Bill with a forward-looking measure of which their party and the House could be proud.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Colin Burgon: I am grateful to be able to make my maiden speech on so important an issue as welfare reform, which is a key priority of the new Labour Government. Both Government and Opposition Members recognise that such reform is long overdue. All of us who are in touch with the public know that the social security system is regarded as complex, inefficient and unfair. We have all been involved with constituents who cannot make sense of decision making and appeals or who are frustrated with the repetitious and bureaucratic information-gathering process, and with staff who despair at translating the rules into reality for the people with whom they deal.
  The Secretary of State is therefore to be congratulated on bringing forward measures that will make the social security system modern, efficient and fair: modern in the sense that, through better use of information technology, each claimant will have to give information only once; efficient in that the way in which decisions will be made will be simplified and the appeals system streamlined; and fair because loopholes will be closed to limit avoidance of the payment of national insurance contributions.

  805
  I especially welcome new criminal penalties for serious cases of deliberate evasion and fraud. I hope that all hon. Members recognise that we need to win public support for the new social security system. Without it, any welfare scheme is bound to fail. Every pound lost through fraud is a pound less for people in real need. The billions of pounds lost through fraud short-change the taxpayer, take resources from the most needy in our society and undermine confidence in and support for our welfare system. Labour Members believe that the welfare state should act as a springboard, not a safety net.
  The Labour Government realise that social security should mean more than a system of benefits. We also believe that we must provide true security through employment, growth and better education. The Bill recognises those aims and should be regarded as an essential interlocking element in the raft of reforms that will help us to build a fairer, more dynamic and more cohesive society. That is why the Bill will be welcomed in my constituency of Elmet.
  I must pause at that point because I have found since entering the House that I am always asked two questions: where is Elmet, and how did it get its name? It is not what you put on your 'ead. If there was cash for answers, I would be a wealthy man. I can tell interested parties that Elmet takes its name from the last Celtic kingdom in England. The constituency falls entirely within the boundaries of the great city of Leeds, in which I am proud to have been born. It lies on the eastern edge of Leeds and is, by any standards, a diverse constituency.
  Created in 1983 by the boundary commission, which seemed determined to weld together what might appear to be disparate parts, the seat was, until May 1997, represented by one party and one hon. Member. Spencer Batiste, the Conservative Member for 14 years, had a special interest in science and technology, and was well respected in that sphere. Although he never held major office, he was a loyal supporter of his Government. With his legal background, he prided himself on his debating skills. I am sorry that we did not meet very often in that arena. He was a courteous opponent, given the nature of politics in Yorkshire, and I wish him good health and success in any activity that he undertakes outside the political sphere.
  I have a confession to make. Mr. Batiste may have become tired of seeing and hearing my name over the years, for I fought the seat three times before being successful. Indeed, given my advancing years, some might say that May 1997 represented my last chance to enter the House. I am grateful to the voters of Elmet for combating agism and for finally recognising my worth before it was too late.
  In all those difficult years, I had the good fortune to be sustained by true and trusty friends in Elmet Labour party, whom I thank for their support. To help people locate my constituency, I should like to thank the Members for the neighbouring constituencies, Geoff Lofthouse, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), who, along with their supporters, gave me so much help.
  Some hon. Members use their maiden speeches to boost the tourism prospects of their constituencies. I advise a walk along the Leeds country way, which criss-crosses my constituency; people would soon realise how pleasant Elmet is.
  806
  Visitors to the northern part of my constituency will find the market town of Wetherby, through which the River Wharfe flows. Surrounding the town are some affluent villages, but this relative economic affluence causes one of the major problems in the area—the lack of affordable housing for young people who were born in the area but who can no longer afford to live there.
  In the centre of the constituency is the Whinmoor ward—once represented by Denis Healey—which consists predominately of council houses built in the 1960s and 1970s surrounded by substantial private development. The core area of the ward has seen better times and, I hope, will experience those times anew under the Labour Government. The quality of housing and youth unemployment are the most important problems that the Labour Government will have to address, confront and remedy.
  The southern end of the constituency is dominated by the town of Garforth, the largest centre of population in Elmet. It is a former mining village whose character has changed over the years as it has expanded, but it has not lost its work ethic in the process. The surrounding settlements of Micklefield, Kippax, Swillington, Methley and Allerton Bywater are villages that prospered and grew as a result of the coal industry and are now undergoing change. At the end of this week, I shall meet residents of Allerton Bywater to discuss the possible development of the colliery site, the last to close in the constituency. I am anxious that change should take place in the interests of local people, whose values and wishes must be respected. In a complex and changing world, we should all value a sense of identity and place and I hope that many in the House share that view.
  The old coalfield area at the southern end of Elmet is the area from which I draw historical, political and sporting inspiration. I mention sport because my area is rugby league territory, and loyalties are split between Leeds and Castleford. It may interest the House to learn that, last week, I made my debut in what my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) calls "the people's game". The occasion was a match between the House of Commons and the under-16 Yorkshire rugby league team, held to publicise the fact that the team was anxious to raise money to enable it to visit South Africa to act as ambassadors for the sport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who won?"] I ignore the result at this stage. If the game had gone on for half an hour more, we would have won. One of the lads in the team was from Kippax in my constituency, so I was prevailed upon—I use the term advisedly—to play in the game.
  One thing became clear during the game: I should stick to football, which I must admit is my first love. I therefore add with some pride that Elmet contains the training ground of Leeds United, the team I have supported since I was a boy. I wish my team well—as I am sure all hon. Members do—in the coming season and I hope that we can somehow rediscover our ability to put the ball in the opposition's net, thus giving Bryn Law, my favourite Radio Leeds sports commentator, something to shout about.
  I mentioned history and politics, and the coalfield area is rich in both. I hope that, in the coming years, we will see in my constituency some of the lovely blue plaques that mark the birthplaces or homes of famous people. I make two nominations for such an award. The first is Ben Pickard, who was born in Kippax and became the

  807
  president of the Miners Federation of Great Britain. He also became the Liberal Member of Parliament for the Normanton constituency in the days before the tide of Labour swept the Liberals away.
  Mr. David Rendel: The tide has turned.
  Mr. Burgon: The tide has gone out, I think.
  Just up the road in the Great Preston workhouse is the birthplace of Herbert Smith, an interesting character. He rose to become general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, and with its president—the mercurial A. J. Cook—led the miners through the stormy 1920s. I had to smile when I learned of Herbert Smith's negotiating technique, which could be commended to any Europhobes on the Opposition Benches. Smith used to listen to his opponents, take out his false teeth, give them a good wipe, put them back and say in his Yorkshire accent, "Nowt doing." Such an approach would take Brussels by storm.
  In drawing my remarks to a conclusion, I should like to say that the people whom I am especially proud to represent share my view—a simple view—that it is better to have a nation at work than on benefit. They also believe that in society one has rights, but also responsibilities. The Bill works towards achieving both aims. It will be welcome by the people of Elmet and of this country, and we should commend it.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I am pleased to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member fmor Elmet (Mr. Burgon), who spoke ably and with good humour. I look forward to hearing many of his speeches in future to this House. He was generous in the tribute he paid to his predecessor, Spencer Batiste, with whom I served for many years on the Government Benches. It is a shame that he is not here now, but the hon. Gentleman will no doubt prove to be an able successor.
  The hon. Member spared us a tourist's guide to his constituency, but expressed his interest and his constituency's history in sport. Were Ito have any ability in that area—which I do not—I would be attracted to his constituency. I am sure that others will be.
  The hon. Member for Elmet made it clear that his constituency was not pronounced with an "H". I thought that that was appropriate in this debate because of the Secretary of State's apparent obsession with hats in her speech, when she seemed to be justifying the need for a change in the appeals process by referring to the number of hats she claimed were worn by various appeal tribunals sitting in one building. I searched the Bill in vain to find any reference to hats. Nevertheless, I welcome many of the Bill's proposals.
  This is an impressive Bill, and I pay tribute the Secretary of State. The Bill contains many proposals and principles which I will find it easy to support. I did not think that she had it in her—and nor did she, in view of her previous remarks about many of the proposals contained in the Bill. I welcome her late conversion to the principles in the Bill, which I shall support as it progresses through the House.
  The Bill has a strange and remarkable familiarity, which I put down to the fact that most of its proposals were made by the previous Government, and would no
  808
  doubt have become law in the fulness of time. One could be forgiven for imagining that the Secretary of State had reached up to a shelf in her Department, found a Tory Bill, dusted it down, altered a few clauses, and brought it to the House as one of her own.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) suggested that the Bill might be termed the "Peter Lilley memorial Bill", and there is a good argument for doing so. But he also referred to the man who liked the razor so much, he bought the company—Victor Kiam. Perhaps the Bill should be termed the "Victor Kiam memorial Bill", because the thinking behind it is similar. The Secretary of State has taken a Tory measure and dressed it up in new Labour rhetoric. I thought that she did so without much success, although she appears to have convinced many Government Back Benchers.
  Perhaps I am being uncharitable towards the Secretary of State. I welcome her conversion, and hope that there will be more as she proceeds with her new responsibilities. She will find that the realities of her job increasingly draw her towards the same interpretations and policies adopted by the previous Government. If she continues in that direction, I for one will welcome her if, in the fulness of time, she crosses the Floor to join us.
  This is a surprisingly tough Bill. Its purpose is to save money and to crack down on fraud, abuse and inefficiency. It will do so through a series of measures, including the institution of new fraud offences and penalties; the withdrawal and suspension of benefits in certain circumstances; compulsory medicals; the reduction from three months to one month for backdated claims; the introduction of computer decision making; cross-referencing and the transfer of information from one Department to another; and, last but by no means least, reductions in payments to single parents.
  The streamlining of the appeals process is also welcome and it too is designed to save money and to make the system work more efficiently. According to the explanatory and financial memorandum, total savings will be £200 million a year, but if one includes the build-up of savings in subsequent years, as well as greater uptake, I suspect that those savings will be considerably higher, and could possibly approach £500 million a year.
  The Bill is designed to save money and to cut the social security bill. It builds on the foundations laid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) when he was Secretary of State for Social Security. He laid great emphasis on the need to reform the system and to save money—a task that he performed with great ability. In the past three years, the money saved by anti-fraud and related measures has grown considerably, from £889 million to £1.4 billion, and in the last financial year a saving of £1.8 billion was recorded.
  Those savings were achieved as a result of measures designed to combat fraud and to achieve greater efficiency. My right hon. Friend made great virtue of the right argument that every pound wasted in inefficiency or paid out to a fraudulent claimant was a pound lost to a deserving case. That is why the Conservative Government laid great stress on the need to be tough on fraud and to cut it out. Our associated policy was designed to ensure

  809
  that those who rightfully applied to receive benefit could have their identities checked so that payments could be accurately made.
  Kali Mountford: No one in the House would want to see fraudulent claims for benefit, but does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, if employers do not pay appropriate contributions on behalf of their employees, the cost to the state and to the individual who makes a claim are exceedingly grave? I represented people who thought that they were entitled to benefits but who were not eligible because of such non-payments. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a new avenue of fraud which should be dealt with?
  Mr. Merchant: It is not a new avenue, because the previous Government were also concerned when national insurance contributions were not properly paid. Because the then system enabled employers to make use of avoidance measures, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the then Chancellor introduced a number of measures to combat them. I greatly welcome the fact that their subsequent related proposals have been included in the Bill. Such anti-avoidance measures are part of the formula, which must be drawn up correctly so that the system can work with the greatest efficiency.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) on making progress, in the sense that she accepts that fraudulent claims have been made in the past. It may seem strange to her that I should say that, but when I sat on the Government Benches I remember how the then Opposition used to suggest that there was no fraud in the system. Just a few years ago, when the the Conservative Government introduced proposals to root it out, the Opposition used to argue that there was no problem, and that there was no need to take action.
  I am glad that the majority of those in the Labour Government now accept that fraud exists in the system and that it is necessary to exert continuous pressure on the administrative processes and to check up on claimants to ensure that they are rightfully entitled. If we do not remove fraud from the system, a huge black hole will remain, down which large sums of money will be lost—money which cannot be directed to those entitled to it.
  It is pleasing to see a new consensus emerging on welfare policy—a consensus that recognises that fraud exists and needs to be stopped; that inefficiencies in the system need to be rooted out and processes improved; and that welfare should exist as a hand-up rather than a hand-out. The Secretary of State used that phrase, which is identical to that used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden when he was Secretary of State.
  Ms Stuart: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a difference between fraudulent claimants and fraud committed by employers? We particularly objected to the practice of employers who defrauded their employees by failing to make the appropriate national insurance contributions. I would appreciate it if he could recognise that difference.
  Mr. Merchant: Fraud is fraud however it is carried out. I condemn it equally in either circumstance that the
  810
  hon. Lady described. I do not suggest that the fraud is of lesser significance if it is carried out by an employer or an employee. We should join together to say that, when the rules and regulations are not adhered to, or when the system works to allow fraud to creep in, steps need to be taken to prevent it.
  The previous Government did a great deal in their drive against fraud—witness the huge savings in the last financial year of £1.8 billion. The fact that the new Government have agreed to go further down the same road and to take on board the policies that were rightly applied by the previous Government is greatly welcome. That is why I support the Bill and the principles behind it, even though in some circumstances it will be necessary to look closely at the details.
  I am concerned, for example, about the reduction from three months to one month for backdated claims. I thought that the Secretary of State's justification for that was somewhat glib, and she avoided answering the detailed questions to which she was subjected. I suspect that there will be individual cases of potential great hardship that could be caused by a rigid interpretation of clause 70. When we have an opportunity to consider it in more detail, I hope we can assured that sufficient checks and balances will exist to prevent undue hardship. I will strongly support any measure to prevent wrongful claims, but I would be wary should the Bill act against those who, through no fault of their own, may find themselves in difficult circumstances.
  The streamlining of the appeals process will speed up the system, make it more efficient and benefit the would-be claimant and the taxpayer. I welcome that, but I would be concerned were the system to become so rigid, bureaucratic and swift in its decision taking that it prevented a person from making a genuine and persuasive appeal against a wrong decision in the first place. I support other aspects of the suggested reforms in principle, but it will be necessary to consider them in detail to prevent any injustice.
  Finally, I turn to one other element of the Bill that I would not include in the general efficiency and anti-fraud section; it has been tacked on. It is clause 68, which refers to lone parents. It is an extraordinary clause, not because it is unjustified—it is not—but because it is being proposed by the Labour Government. The Secretary of State is on record as being opposed to precisely what she is now proposing. She has undergone a dramatic conversion—perhaps the most dramatic of all—and very quickly.
  The right hon. Lady is taking her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with her. As early as January, he spelled out, in crystal-clear language, that a future Labour Government would not adopt the proposal, which was then a Conservative proposal. The crystal-clear language he used consisted of one word—"No." He said he would not introduce the measure, yet now it is being introduced.
  I welcome the proposal, because it equalises the position of married and single parents, and that equalisation is good in theory and practice. However, after all the opposition generated by Labour Members, I am surprised that they are now proposing it as one of their policies. That is another conversion—a welcome one, and a surprising one.
  The Labour party has learnt that Conservative policy in this area was correct, and that Labour's original policy was wrong. I do not want to rub the Government's noses

  811
  in their conversion, but it should be drawn to the attention of the House and of their Back Benchers, who, only a few months ago, followed their cheerleaders in condemning the Conservative Government's proposals.
  For all those reasons, I give the Bill a mark of about eight out of 10. I look forward to watching, and perhaps even participating in, its progress through the House. I also look forward to future social security measures, and to seeing whether they score as highly in my estimation as this one.
  I am surprised by some of the measures that are not in the Bill, in view of the noise made by the Labour party when various policies were introduced by the previous Government. In particular, when the jobseeker's allowance was introduced, the Labour party gave every impression that, as soon as it had an opportunity, it would seek to abolish it. As soon as the Bill was published, I looked for a reference to that, but all we are met with is silence. I wonder whether that silence will continue.
  When the Minister winds up the debate, I should be interested in what he has to say about what has been left out of the Bill, as well as what has been included. I shall also listen with interest to his comments on the future of Operation Spotlight and the change programme, both of which were important elements in the previous Government's policy. It is not yet clear whether the Labour Government will continue them—if they do, I will welcome that. I wish the Government well in their continued application of Conservative social security policy.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Terry Rooney: I, too, pay tribute to the maiden speech by my poor relation from Leeds, the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon). I suggest that he familiarise himself with social security, especially the jobseeker's allowance, because if his football team perform next year as they did last year there will be an awful lot of them on the dole.
  The Bill is extremely wide ranging, with 77 clauses and 7 schedules. The House will be pleased to know that I do not intend to speak on all of them, but will confine my remarks to just a few. Before coming to the House, I spent 10 years as a welfare rights adviser. As a result, I have had to serve on 13 Bills dealing with social security, many of them with the Under—Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). I can vouch for many of the remarks attributed to him today, but we will not go into that. I am not sure whether serving on all those Bills was a reward or a penance; nevertheless. I recognise many of the concerns expressed in the representations that we have all received and I have no doubt that they will be suitably ironed out during the passage of the Bill.
  First, I will address the proposals for the appeals system. Anyone who has suffered the social security appeals system, whether as a claimant, a member of staff or a representative of a claimant, cannot in any way accept the current system—it is simply abominable. I have no problem at all with the abolition of the five separate tribunals and their being brought into one. Let us consider two types of appeal. For a client of the Child Support Agency living in west Yorkshire, the administration of the case is dealt with in Belfast; if the person decides to make an appeal, the file is then sent to Falkirk for preparation.
  812
  When it is finished with there, which can take anything up to a year if the person is lucky and even longer if they are unlucky, it is, for some reason, sent to Salford. People in Salford then endeavour to contact all relevant parties and to arrange a suitable time for the appeal to be heard in Leeds.
  In the case of a claimant for disability living allowance, the administration of the case is dealt with in Blackpool, but if the person decides to lodge an appeal, the file and all the papers are sent to Nottingham for preparation. The appeal papers are then dispatched to Leeds for the clerk there to make the necessary arrangements for the appeal to be heard. Irrespective of any other delays in the system, and even if the file does not get lost—and the claimant is very lucky if it does not—that process of shuffling papers around the country can take three or four months. Nobody benefits from that and we should not tolerate or accept such a system.
  As a representative, one of the most frustrating things that happened to me was turning up at a tribunal and finding that only two members were present—sometimes only one member was present. I had waited months, done all the preparation, got my client ready and turned up on the day on time, only to find that the tribunal was incomplete. I then had to decide whether to go ahead with an incomplete tribunal, or to seek an adjournment and come back at some time in the future. I should mention at this point that my hon. Friend the new Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) served for many years on social security appeal tribunals in Bradford and was an excellent, diligent and devoted member—would that everyone who sits on tribunals showed the same commitment.
  That time delay, the lack of people turning up and the frequent inability of tribunal members to understand the case that they are hearing is tremendously frustrating and leads to bad decisions being made. Those are often contested and taken to the social security and child support commissioners, which leads to further delay and anger and upset among claimants, which is the last thing they need. The system needs massively simplifying and putting into order to bring back speed and justice.
  Why is the number of appeals increasing? Part of the answer is undoubtedly the increase in recent years in the number of claimants. Another major development was the change from the old yellow book, which we all thought was quite complicated, to the new blue book, which is even more complicated and about 20 times as long—I see knowing looks on the faces of hon. Members who remember these things. The main contributing factor, however, is undoubtedly poor decision making. No improvements in the appeals system can replace getting the decision right in the first place.
  Why are poor decisions made? Why is morale among Benefits Agency staff as low as it is? For years, they have been abused and reviled by successive Secretaries of State; the work that they do has been undervalued; their status has been devalued; their jobs have been threatened; and the conditions in which they have to work are appalling. Some 61,000 people currently work for the Benefits Agency, of whom more than 5,000 are on temporary contracts and 13,000 have worked at the agency for less than five years. The tremendous staff turnover leads to much of the bad decision making. That issue therefore needs tackling in the longer term.

  813
  Throughout the country, social security premises are abysmal. Within a mile of this building, there are three social security offices that would be closed down if they were being used as dog kennels; yet we expect people to work in those places and we expect claimants to attend there. That is a major contributory factor leading to low morale of staff and lack of accuracy in decision making.
  We must reduce the complexity and number of forms that people are expected to complete. Anyone who has battled with what I believe is still called the B1—the claim form for income support—knows that it would defy an expert on completing income tax forms. Form A1, which is used by pensioners claiming income support, includes a question asking whether the claimant is pregnant. I know that science is advancing and that a mad doctor in Italy is doing all sorts of things, but by and large it is reasonable to assume that a pensioner, especially a male pensioner, will not be pregnant. Such anomalies appear in forms that have been prepared over the years—forms that appear to any lay person to be designed to prevent people from making a claim and pursuing it. That needs to be sorted out.
  Separate forms must be submitted for jobseeker's allowance—contributory and non-contributory—for income support, and for housing benefit. So many of the questions on those forms overlap. I hope that the contents of the Bill will make inroads into the complexity, not only for claimants, but for the staff who process the documents. Frequently, the same information is processed three or four times when once should be enough.
  Some years ago, my local authority—and, I believe, subsequently the one in Manchester—devised a standard form that could be completed to claim any benefit administered by the local authority, be it free school meals, educational maintenance allowance, housing benefit or council tax benefit. After completing one form, the person was informed which benefits they were entitled to. That innovation has saved tens of thousands of pounds and speeded up the process. Nowadays if a claim is not determined within 21 days there is almost a major inquiry, because the system has become so efficient. Similar progress needs to be made in the social security system. I believe that the information sharing provided for in the Bill will go a long way towards that.
  Earlier this year, the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 was passed. Information sharing between the agencies and the Inland Revenue and so on was a major feature of that Act. Ironically and nonsensically, however, it was only in respect of fraud—not to help people to claim what was genuinely theirs. That highlights the difference between the approach of the previous Administration and that of the present Administration. Claimants have a right to be paid their due. Certainly fraud is wrong and should be stamped out, but identical standards of service need to apply to both sections of the service. We know of far too many people who have walked away from the system, fed up with its bureaucracy; that must not continue to happen.
  There are three separate forms that people can complete and send off to Glasgow—or perhaps it is Newcastle—to claim assistance with dental charges, travel costs and medical aids, depending on whether they are on income support, on low income, or retired. Three separate types
  814
  of form are sent to one address. Why cannot those matters be dealt with at the local office? That would be easy and it would save massive administration costs.
  There are provisions in the Bill for tackling employer abuse of national insurance contributions. I have had several cases over the years of people who, on losing their jobs, have made their claim at the Employment Service only to be told, two to four weeks later, that their claim was disallowed because their contribution record was incomplete. Fortunately, all those cases could be resolved because they were diligent people who had kept their P60s and could prove that the deductions had been made and that their employer had been at fault.
  Those were just the few people who had bothered to meet their Member of Parliament. For all we know, for every one of those people there are 20 or 30 others in a similar position. That is fine in the case of unemployment benefit, because usually it is possible to get that sorted out, but what would happen if those people had changed jobs, gone to different employers and been lucky enough never to be out of work? What will happen if, on reaching retirement age, people suddenly find that they have an incomplete record? They will not be able to look back 30 or 40 years and say, "There is the proof that I paid the contributions, but the employer did not hand the money over, so I want my full pension." It will be too late then.
  An awful lot of such abuse by employers is going on. It is increasingly common, and it happens because of the lack of supervision of national insurance payments by employers. Anything that tightens up on that, and on payments by dodgy methods, is welcome, because people must believe that the money that is taken from them is credited to their contribution record.
  The system of decision making in the DSS defies belief and lacks credibility. I know of no one involved in the social security system who accepts that adjudication officers are independent. I know of no claimant who sees a difference between a decision taken by an adjudication officer and one taken by a Secretary of State. To them, the person behind the counter has taken the decision and legal technicalities mean nothing. An adjudication officer works in the same office as the other staff, on the same payroll, under the same management and even the same Minister. To the general public, they are simply people who work in the DSS, and we need to get rid of such crazy differentials.
  Unfortunately, the system has developed to the stage where it no longer serves staff, claimants, representatives or the taxpayer. It is inefficient and bureaucratic and needs altering.
  Mr. Webb: I have listened with interest and respect to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He made telling points about the appeals aspects of the Bill. I apologise if I pre-empt what he was about to say about lone-parent benefit, but just in case he was not going to mention it, may I ask him, as someone who is expert in welfare rights, what he believes will be the effect of scrapping lone-parent benefit on people such as those he used to advise?
  Mr. Rooney: The hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that the vast majority of people who are paid single-parent benefit receive no advantage from it because it is deducted, pound for pound, if they are on income support.

  815
  Those on family credit lose about 72 per cent. So the number who actually receive any benefit is small. In an ideal world, it would not be done away with, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept, especially if he has kept awake during the past 18 years, that this Administration have not inherited an ideal world. I hope that he will see at the end of five years that the position of lone parents is vastly improved on what it was on 1 May 1997.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Rooney: I will not take any more interventions as I have nearly finished.
  Staff morale is extremely low. The three programmes—change, adapt and prime—are continuing. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) mentioned change, but the other two programmes are very destructive to staff morale. Claimants suffer from lack of faith in the Department, from unintelligible decisions, confusing bureaucracy and the unresponsiveness of the system.
  People who come into contact with the Department of Social Security have, almost by definition, suffered a traumatic experience, such as a death in the family or loss of employment. That is why they need to make contact in the first place. They should be met by a system that will deal with them compassionately, speedily and efficiently.
  I hope that the Bill will be the first step to achieving the ideals that I have outlined. I hope for further legislation in the months and years to come. This Bill can only be the starting point. Nevertheless, it is a big Bill which takes on a great many issues and I hope that it will receive the support of the House today.
  6.59 pm
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I did not come into the Chamber with the intention of speaking in the debate, but I became so incensed by the remarks of Ministers, particularly in respect of clauses 68 and 70, that I felt that I had to say something. The impromptu nature of my decision, however, means that my remarks will of necessity be short.
  I add my welcome to the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon). It is many years since I was in Leeds, so I cannot say with any certainty that I have been to his constituency—although from his description it would seem unlikely that anyone visiting Leeds would avoid it. I was in Leeds to indulge a sporting interest, although I hasten to add that it had nothing to do with rugby, under either set of rules. I therefore bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of that game.
  I shall not, however, bow to the hon. Gentleman's—or the Government's—attitude to social security. I wish to deal mainly with clauses 68 and 70, which I notice that Labour Back Benchers have assiduously avoided this evening. I suspect that that is because they are deeply embarrassed about, and thoroughly ashamed of, those aspects of the Bill. I am under no such inhibition, and I intend to say what I suspect that many Labour Members in their hearts would wish to say if they were honest with themselves.
  I have listened with care and interest to what is being suggested in regard to the removal of lone-parent benefit. I listened with astonishment to the remarks of the
  816
  Secretary of State, who appeared to suggest that there was a clamour from lone-parent organisations desperate for the Government to cut their benefits. I seem to have missed those briefing documents and demands—perhaps some selective lobbying is going on. While I do not doubt for one moment that all lone parents would like to be able to work and would much prefer earning to receiving benefits, the fact remains that many of them rely heavily on benefits and that those who find work are often on low pay. In such circumstances every pound is immensely important and I should dearly love to see or hear any evidence of a demand from lone parents that their benefits be cut, but I suspect that not one Labour Member could point to any such demand.
  This move will hurt the very people about whom I have long understood that the Labour party claims to care. Now that Labour is in government, however, the very opposite would seem to apply and hypocrisy is the order of the day. That hypocrisy is exemplified by some of the remarks made by Labour Members when they were in opposition.
  Like the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who made some play of comments made in the past, I should like to allude to a few myself. Someone who was described as the spokesman for the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security as recently as November 1996 referred to the then Government's proposal to cut lone-parent support as "short-sighted". Presumably that person spoke with the full authority of the current Secretary of State. It was said of the proposals then that they would make matters worse and that any cut would enlarge the poverty trap.
  What has changed between November 1996 and July 1997 to cause such a material change in the Government's attitude? Why has a proposal that would "enlarge the poverty trap" suddenly become the most wonderful thing since sliced bread? Such a U-turn in such a short space of time is astonishing—the more so when we recall that it will affect vulnerable people.
  A pattern seems to be developing here. Clause 70 deals with restrictions on reasons for backdating benefit. In this case, Labour is not just taking up what the previous Government wanted to do—it is showing every intention of trying to out-Tory the Tories in almost every respect. Earlier this afternoon there was a mischievous point of order inquiring whether the Liberal Democrats, in the light of today's events, would not be more comfortable sitting on the Labour Benches. After last night's debate, and having heard this evening's debate, I wonder whether Conservative Members might not just as well mingle with Members on the Labour Back Benches as there is precious little difference between them—except that the new Government are going even further than the former Administration were prepared to go.
  There must be people sitting on the Government side of the House who, deep down, are sick and sorry about the impact that the proposals will have on ordinary people. The Secretary of State failed to tackle the new inclusion of housing benefit and council tax benefit in the backdating restrictions. Not even the previous Government were prepared to restrict the 12-month backdating rule to three months and one month, respectively—and for good reason. Arrears can mount up if these benefits are not paid. I do not know whether my mailbag is completely different from that of other hon. Members, but I would be surprised if they did not have to

  817
  deal with these problems in their constituencies. Neither a private nor a public landlord will write off arrears of rent just because ordinary people have lost money in this way, and local authorities will not write off council tax arrears that people cannot pay if their claims are not backdated.
  It is indeed astonishing that the Government should take this line, although their continual use of the phrase "keeping spending down" gives the game away. I remind the Government that the Social Security Advisory Committee criticised the changes brought in by the previous Government as paying
  "insufficient regard to the reasons why claims are submitted late and/or without the necessary substantiating evidence".
  The committee recommended that the rules should not be changed. The then Government rejected its main recommendations, but the new Government intend to go much further. The backdating period—now set at one month, unless otherwise stated by regulation—may keep spending down: it will certainly keep down the spending of claimants because they will have precious little left to purchase anything. The decision is iniquitous, and especially harsh with respect to housing and council tax benefits. It is astonishing that the Government intend to proceed down such a road.
  The removal of lone-parent benefit and the decision on backdated payments, taken together, will cause direct hardship.
  Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Cunningham: No, I am about to wind up my remarks. I said that I would keep my speech short. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will speak later.
  The Government are taking money away from some of the poorest and most vulnerable people. Anyone who votes for the Bill ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and I think highly enough of some Labour Members to imagine that they will be.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Before coming to the remarks that I have prepared, I want to deal with Opposition Members' somewhat contrive interpretation of clause 70.
  It would appear that hon. Members who read clause 70 as allowing backdating for only one month have failed to read the whole clause. It is obvious, especially from subsection (2)(b), that there is an opportunity to deal with the very circumstances that Opposition Members anticipate might cause difficulty and hardship. It might have been more helpful to the debate if those who have experience in the area and who have received correspondence on the matter had been able to give Labour Members—especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her team—more details of the circumstances in which such arrears could build up and difficulties could be engendered. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), will no doubt be able to address the specific difficulties and see whether the provision that I have pointed out would enable circumstances to be prescribed to deal with such difficulties.
  818
  We have heard thus far a generalised complaint from more than one source, that the backdating provisions can operate in only one way. That is a restricted interpretation of the clause, which I commend to the House. There are opportunities to deal with difficulties in the very situations to which the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), in particular, alluded. If her mailbag is so crammed full, would it not have been helpful to have articulated some of the circumstances in which such injustices could come about, so that a proper response could be made to them?
  The importance of the welfare system cannot be underestimated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put the system into a national perspective. When one considers, as I often do, that £93 billion—almost a third of public spending—is eaten up by the welfare budget, the national perspective is clear. Conservative Members ought to be very clear about it, because their policies created the circumstances that have caused the need for such spending to be devoted to providing a sometimes well-holed safety net for many of the most unfortunate people in our society.
  On a more local level, the problems, complaints and trauma of my constituents, who regularly attend my surgeries clutching bundles of papers—mostly incomprehensible correspondence from the Department of Social Security or other benefit agencies—have brought home to me the personal difficulties generated by the present welfare system. I suspect that my constituents will join me in welcoming the Government's commitment to the reform of the welfare state.
  It is a measure of the need for reform that almost no one who is involved in the system expresses any confidence in it or public support for it—despite the fact that we are spending such a vast part of the nation's wealth on it. The task of rebuilding that lost confidence is gargantuan and the measures in the Bill are to some degree the beginnings of that long process. The customers of the service—claimants or those who are entitled to benefits—deserve a better deal. The Bill is a significant step towards providing that better deal, in three important ways.
  First, in clause 1, there is a provision that will rationalise the initial decision-making process. That objective is supported by all who have made representations to me on the Bill—many unsolicited—including representations from citizens advice bureaux and the Child Poverty Action Group. Further, the objective was supported almost universally by all respondents to the previous Government's Green Paper.
  It is my experience—it is obviously one that I share with some of my hon. Friends—that the roots of many of the later problems that are addressed in the Bill are to be found in the initial decision-making process. Among the customers of the Benefits Agency, the Child Support Agency and the Employment Service, there is a significant lack of confidence in initial decisions being correct—even when they are. That public perception is supported by the findings reported in consecutive annual reports of the chief adjudication officer. There appear to be two important reasons for it.

  819
  The first reason, which is highlighted by the chief adjudication officer in his latest report, relates to the adequacy of the evidence on which initial decisions are made. Reporting on his monitors' responses, he commented that there were
  "too many comments casting doubt on the adequacy of evidence. Whether the evidence was ever to hand, was missed under general pressures or the processes were just too complex is often far from clear."
  Despite significant efforts to improve the performance of adjudication officers, the chief adjudication officer was able to report
  "only on a year of mixed achievement".
  The report said that he
  "saw no dramatic general improvement in standards."
  It is against that background that I welcome the rationalisation of the decision-making process and the abolition of the distinction between decisions made by adjudication officers and those made by the Secretary of State. The Government cannot be expected to address the complexities of the process—the other half of the perceived problem—after only two and a half months in power. That work will be addressed over the years to come.
  The second reason arises from the first. It is clear from my constituents' experiences that one of the direct effects of the poor quality of initial decision making is an overloading of the system at both review and appeal stages. The instinct of claimants, many of whom are imbued with a cultural distrust of agencies, is not to accept the initial decision. Those who are worldly wise or who have previous experience of the benefit system—there are many such people in my constituency—are motivated to appeal simply because they have no confidence in the process. Those who consult advisers, welfare rights officers or citizens advice bureaux are often advised to appeal, if for no other reason than to keep their options open or simply so that they can go on the lengthening waiting lists for appeals.
  The analysis of the monitoring statistics prepared by the central adjudication services and published in an annex to the chief adjudication officer's annual report justifies such an approach to the appeals system. The statistics not only give ground for concern because of the large proportion of cases in which, when monitored, the accuracy of the payment of benefits was either in doubt or just plainly incorrect, but show that, for certain benefits, a small proportion of decisions was found to be incorrect. There must be a better way of making decisions, so that claimants can have confidence that the decisions on their claims are just, fair and accurate.
  My experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, short though it is, and my constituents' experiences, which are much longer, are supported by the findings recorded by the central adjudication services monitoring process, as reported by the chief adjudication officer. That is the convincing case for change. It is no answer to the Government's proposals—at the very least, it is an inadequate answer—to say that, if the Secretary of State takes on the role as proposed in clause 1, those making first-tier decisions will lose their independence. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is no longer in the Chamber, made that point earlier by way of intervention.
  820
  It may be a legal nicety that adjudication officers are independent in law, but it cuts no ice with the claimants for whom they are making decisions. Legal independence and the attention that has been paid to improving the process have failed to deliver. Claimants demand the delivery of an efficient, reliable and accurate service within a reasonable time. That can be achieved only by reforming the existing mixture of different decision makers into one.
  It is accepted that that change alone will not deliver the objectives, and that it must be supported by other changes if we are to improve the decision-making process. The chief executives of various agencies should be responsible for ensuring that staff decisions are as accurate, simple and clear as possible. Training, advice and guidance must be improved, and that will become the responsibility of the chief executives when the Bill passes into law. It is a step in the right direction.
  Concerns have been expressed in lobbying papers that I have received about the monitoring of decision making, which is at present carried out by the chief adjudication officer. I am content that the responsibility should lie with the chief executive of the relevant department. The monitoring process is now well recognised and understood, so it is important that it should continue. However, chief executives must report the results of monitoring to the Secretary of State to whom they are accountable. Although that process of accountability is important, the results of monitoring exercises must be reported publicly. Accordingly, before moving to my second reason for supporting the legislation, I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm whether the Department intends to require the publication of chief executives' reports.
  I come now to my second reason for supporting the legislation. As has been explained on more than one occasion, it is a nonsense that claimants are often required to provide the same information in different forms when claiming different benefits to which they are, or may be, entitled. The sharing of information between and among agencies and between agency departments is a logical and a necessary step toward improving efficiency. Clause 3 will allow that to happen: it should greatly reduce the frustration experienced by many claimants and lead to increased efficiency and accuracy in the decision-making process.
  The use of technology is not limited to sharing information, however, and may be brought into play not merely as an aid to the decision-making process, but as the process itself. At present, a number of decisions are made by computers, although the hard copy—the decision—is checked and signed by an adjudication officer. To the extent that clause 2 permits a decision to be made by a computer as opposed to an individual, it is but recognition of a growing reality. I believe that it is an appropriate extension of the value of new technology to better service delivery.
  Mr. Letwin: If a computer makes an error, will it be held accountable in law? Will it be punished? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a computer is a responsible agent? How does he justify inserting into English law the general principle of computers' making decisions?
  Mr. Browne: It is difficult to take that intervention seriously, but I shall endeavour to do so. At the risk of

  821
  walking a well-trodden path, the Bill does not introduce the provision into English law—I assume that the hon. Gentleman's concerns go beyond the boundaries of the country that is uppermost in his mind. The concept of computerised information and the reality of its being accepted in law already exist. Many provisions throughout many areas of law—both north and south of the border—recognise that we live in this part of the 20th century and that, as a matter of fact, computers make decisions and hold information that is valuable to the judicial process.
  Apart from acknowledging that we live in this part of the 20th century, the hon. Gentleman and others must get used to reality in regard to the benefit system. If we are to introduce into that system the accuracy that the number of complaints necessitates, it is almost imperative that we recognise the worth and use of technology. It is a fiction to imagine that decisions made by computers, which are becoming increasingly more reliable, are being made by persons who simply append their signatures to the hard copy. By spelling it out clearly, the provision recognises the reality regarding many such decisions that are made at present and prepares the ground for taking many other decisions in the same way, using good computer technology. Although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was not being entirely serious, I hope that my answer has dealt with his concerns.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Browne: I am sorry, but I must proceed.
  My third reason relates to the complexity of the current system, which is compounded at each level. In addition to six different initial decision makers and 13 types of decisions, there are about 20 different appeal routes and five different tribunal systems. Rationalisation and modernisation of the review and appeals procedure are long overdue.
  The Bill's provisions for informal review are welcome—indeed, they were generally welcomed by those who responded to the previous Government's Green Paper. The advantages identified by the respondents included the early rectification of mistakes, better explanation of decisions and the early weeding out of cases that would be hopeless appeals. Whether a claimant can avail himself of the significantly improved review process set out in the Bill may depend, ironically, on the clarity of the initial decision. That takes me back to my first point, so I move on.
  I look forward to seeing the regulations that will prescribe the procedure for the revision or review of decisions. It would be helpful if those regulations included a time limit for completing the informal revision, to be imposed not only on the applicant, but on the agency. I am pleased to see that clause 10, in response to submissions made to the Green Paper, includes provisions that protect claimants' rights as to the effective date of review decisions and appeal time limits.
  As to reviews, it is mere common sense that, where an appeal is current, it should generally lapse if the decision is revised before the appeal is determined. In such circumstances, the operative decision for all practical purposes will be the revised or reviewed decision. It makes a nonsense of any attempt to improve the review procedure to allow the possibility of a reviewed decision and an appeal running at the same time.
  822
  In respect of reviews and appeals, concern has been expressed about the provision that does not require consideration of issues not raised by the original application or raised specifically by the appeal. I return to an issue that I raised earlier by way of intervention. As I understand the basis of the criticism, it is alleged that the provision—which, in respect of appeals, is to be found in clause 13(7)—will curtail the powers of tribunals and turn them into adversarial forums; operate to the detriment of claimants, who are perceived to be the weaker parties in appeals; and restrict the investigatory functions of tribunals. That seems to be stretching the Bill's words beyond breaking point.
  I submit that the provision does nothing of the sort. It does not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising a revisory or review function, or tribunals, in exercising their quasi-judicial functions, from acting on their respective initiatives to consider relevant factors, although they were not raised in the review application or in the appeal. I trust that the provisions, in law, will not be used to disqualify relevant arguments or considerations, but will be reserved for the purpose for which they are clearly intended: to prevent the introduction of irrelevant considerations in appeals or reviews.
  I believe that the provisions of the Bill that have generated the strongest criticism are those that relate to the appeals process. The introduction of flexible arrangements for handling appeals found little support in the responses to the Green Paper. Those who responded in that vein—that is, those who did not find the arrangements favourable—no doubt have repeated, and will repeat, their criticisms in their response to the Bill. Although I respect their opinions, which I understand—and I understand the arguments that have been made in support of them—it is significant that there were only 10 recorded responses in the consultation process. I am far from satisfied that the responses that sought to argue for the status quo were representative of the experience of individual claimants.
  It is a daunting prospect for an individual, whether he is represented or not, to face the prospect of a social security appeal or an appeal against a decision in respect of child support. The documentation is often couched in terms that make it impossible to understand. The delay involved in the appeals process is indefensible, and the personal anxiety and trauma generated by it often compound the ill health of many people, some of whom are the weakest in our society.
  There is no need for five separate tribunal jurisdictions, when one single independent body would do. The delay in dealing with cases is caused substantially by the need to convene a tribunal of three persons, composed of the right experts and, since 1984, chaired by a lawyer.
  I have constituents who have waited for nine months for an appeal, only to be advised at the door of the tribunal that the tribunal personnel were inappropriate and that the case would have to return to the waiting list. I have other constituents who have waited up to two years for a tribunal hearing, despite early correspondence from the independent tribunal service advising them that they could expect their case to be heard within nine months of the appeal.

  823
  The culture of delay has created an atmosphere of lethargy in the appeals system. Time limits are often ignored, particularly by adjudication officers, who fail to submit the documentation in support of their decisions timeously, which merely compounds the problem.
  The rigid requirements for the hearing of appeals are calling out for greater flexibility. It should not be necessary for hopeless cases that are destined to fail for obvious reasons to wait in the queue, clogging up the system and delaying cases that have greater merit. It is not important that all appeals be chaired by lawyers. What is important is that there is flexibility in the appeals system, which allows an appropriate tribunal to be convened to deal with the issues raised in an individual case.
  The provisions of the Bill give such flexibility. They preserve the independence of the appeal body. They preserve the rights of appeal from the appeal body to the commissioner and, ultimately, to the appropriate court. They will operate in conjunction with the changes brought into law last October by the previous Government, which introduced a presumption that appeals would be disposed of on the papers and that a claimant would be required to opt for an oral hearing. As a package, they represent a partial modernisation of the social security system which, when operating properly, will streamline the appeals process, quicken appeals, weed out of the system hopeless appeals and in the end help to deliver what the claimant wants—a fair, just, understandable and correct decision on his claim.
  What would those who argue against the reform have the Government do? It has taken almost a century from the introduction of means-tested benefits to get the whole system into its present complex state. There is no prospect of a quick fix for the present mess. The voices of those who call out for a simpler, more easily understood, more transparent and more customer-friendly system of benefits will find an echo on the Government Benches. It will take time and significant legislation to unravel the present labyrinthine system. Until then, we must tackle the problems that can be resolved.
  The imperative is that the decision-making and appeals process is improved. Such improvements are heralded in the Bill—improvements that will not only deliver administrative cost reductions, and they will, but deliver benefit entitlement more quickly. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: My main purpose in speaking this evening is to discuss the wider implications of clause 68, but before I do so, I wish to continue a point that I raised earlier, which was genuinely intended in an entirely constructive and non-controversial spirit.
  I referred specifically to English law, because that is what I have had the time to research. I have not been able to find a single instance in English law—statutory or otherwise—where decision-making power has been attributed to a computer. The hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) raised this point first, thereby showing that it is an entirely cross-party matter. It is a matter of some significance to the development of the corpus of our law whether computers are attributed with decision-making power. This should not be lightly dismissed. It is not,
  824
  perhaps, a matter for the Second Reading debate, but I give notice that it should be discussed in some detail in Committee, because we might find quite unexpected consequences if the measure is passed in its present form.
  I shall now deal with the much more immediate and serious matter of clause 68. Various Opposition Members, including, notably, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Secretary of State, spoke eloquently about clause 68. By contrast, the Secretary of State said very little about it. Indeed, it was evident from her response to interventions—or attempted interventions—that she was in a state of some confusion and dismay, so much so that she apparently thought that she had allowed me to make an intervention and had responded to me, when I had made no such intervention and she had not responded to one. That would reveal a state of mind based on a certain embarrassment. The cause of her embarrassment is, of course, clear. She is on record, as are many of her right hon. and hon. Friends, as opposing the very measure that she now brings before the House.
  The hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), who is not in her place, made the observation that, increasingly, there is little difference between Opposition Members and Government Members in respect of measures such as this. I submit that there is a very major difference: Opposition Members approve of the change that clause 68 makes in bringing into balance the benefit for lone parents and married couples; Government Members are introducing this measure, but do not approve of it. Opposition Members believe in it, but Government Members do not.
  That is a fundamental difference. To introduce changes in which one believes, which are tough and much resented by some of the population and which will have wide-ranging social effects over a prolonged period is one thing, but to introduce such changes on the basis of a lack of belief is quite another. It betokens an attitude to government that will fundamentally undermine such remaining respect for government as there is in this country, or as will remain following the constitutional and other changes that the Government are introducing.
  Clause 68 is important because it illustrates that the attitudes that the present Government brought from opposition, attitudes that consist of being willing to say things quite divorced from real belief, have been carried into government and are being applied to an important element of our social policy. Opposition Members believe in this measure because we believe that, for too long, there has been discrimination in various parts of our tax and social security arrangements against married couples, against the family. We believe that clause 68 reintroduces a certain equilibrium.
  Hon. Members on the Government Benches—not just on the Front Bench but on the Back Benches—are notable for their absence in defending this proposition on any similar social grounds, yet it is a measure that will, over time, have a profound effect on the social composition of this country. That is a remarkable and dangerous phenomenon in government.
  Clause 68—a relatively slight clause in drafting terms—has a further implication. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned, the clause illustrates clearly—as shown by the fact that it is not believed in by the Government, even though they are introducing it—that the Government's attitude to

  825
  social security is now entirely driven from another part of the Government, the Treasury. In this particular instance, we on the Opposition Benches regard the intervention of the Treasury as by mistake benign. It has brought about a transformation in the ostensible attitude of the Department responsible for this legislation which we welcome. If it becomes a general principle of the Government's actions in social security that, without regard to social effects, whatever policies improve the Exchequer's position will automatically be adopted and enacted, we have much to fear from the forthcoming wide-ranging reviews which we are promised.
  Pity the position of the Minister for Welfare Reform when he comes to address the great issues of pension reform which Conservative Members so earnestly wish to see and in which we wish him the best. Pity him if, having been saddled with the retention of the state earnings-related pension scheme in a recent statement in the House, and having been saddled with a Treasury-led attack on the private pension funds to the tune of £5 billion a year, he is now saddled with a general principle that, whatever changes he makes, no regard whatever should be paid to their long-term social effects, but should instead be based entirely on considerations of cost saving. It is unthinkable that, under such constraints, even one so profoundly versed in these matters and so noble in his intentions as the right hon. Gentleman, could conceivably produce a well-founded reform of pensions that will withstand the test of the coming decades in Britain.
  That is a sad thing for Britain because we need much reform in social security, much that is in the Bill, and much that will no doubt be or would have been in the reform of pensions had this Treasury straitjacket not been applied and had there not been such a will on the part of the Government to abandon every thought of long-term social policy and to be guided only by considerations of cost.
  In clause 68 alone, we see a demonstration of two attitudes to government that Conservative Members lament and, in due course, the British people will lament, attitudes that forgo any consideration of social policy and allow the Treasury to rule.
  Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman explain where the increased child care disregard provisions, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, and the new deal for lone parents, which was piloted from yesterday—in Scotland it was piloted from today and I would have been there to see it but for this debate—fit in with the concept of a Treasury-constructed straitjacket? How are those measures Treasury driven?
  Mr. Letwin: That is a remarkable intervention because, in a most remarkable way, it allows me to illustrate the very point that I am trying to raise. It is perfectly true that certain cosmetic measures have been implemented. [Interruption.] It is interesting that Labour Members should laugh, because the hon. Member whom I should like to quote in that regard is that well-known proponent of harsh Tory policies and that well-known inhabitant of the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who gave a passionate, well-informed and devastating analysis of the
  826
  other changes that have been proposed in respect of lone parents, pointing out that they will be virtually without effect. By contrast, it has been stated on the record repeatedly, not only by the Secretary of State but by the Prime Minister and others, that this change is dangerous because it creates a considerable diminution in the immediate income of lone parents.
  As I say, Conservative Members have no objection to that change because we believe that it creates an equilibrium, but the fact is that the costs saved by this measure are out of all proportion to the costs incurred by the other measures and the costs imposed on the lone parent are out of all proportion to the costs saved by the lone parent through the other measures.
  Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman please explain for my guidance, if for that of no other hon. Member, whether his calculations are based on the calculations of his hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) or on the calculations available to us all in Library research document No. 93 of 1997, which appears to have different and substantially lower figures than those quoted by his hon. Friend? Most important, figures that have been independently calculated and have been provided by the Library suggest that there is parity between one of the provisions about which I asked the hon. Gentleman and the total savings from this measure.
  Mr. Letwin: The contrast is between the effect of clause 68 in its first year and its cumulative effect over many years. The cumulative effect over many years will be substantial because increasing numbers of people who would have entered benefit in a particular mode will have entered it in another. Over the years, it is Conservative Members' firm belief, and, we understand, it was the firm belief of Ministers and officials in the previous Government, including those officials who were no doubt responsible for drafting the Bill, that the measure's cumulative effect will far outweigh the sums that it is claimed will be saved by the other measures to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Mr. Browne: With respect, will the hon. Gentleman deal with the simple point? Is he making the point based on the figures that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green used, or is he using the apparently independent figures that are available from the Library?
  Mr. Letwin: This may be becoming tedious to other hon. Members, but I shall reply finally to the point. Yes, I am basing my remarks on the cumulative effect as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and by others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) who, for a long time, was parliamentary private secretary to the previous Secretary of State for Social Security and has great expertise in the matter. There is no doubt that this change will have a large cumulative effect and I have no doubt that the matter will be further amplified when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate.
  Clause 68 contains—I do not think that there is any doubt about this—a measure which is opposed on social grounds by the Department that is putting it forward in the Bill and which is proposed by its Treasury paymasters. It is a principle of government that will put at risk

  827
  Britain's entire social development over many years if it is carried forward into the wide-ranging reviews that are now promised.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Phil Hope: I congratulate my hon. Friends on making some well-informed and constructive contributions to and interventions in the debate. That is in stark contrast to Conservative Members, many of whom are no longer in the Chamber, who seemed to display their profound ignorance of the social security system. They still seem to be living with a world view based on 18 years of economic and social failure rather than seeing this as an opportunity for moving forward.
  I have no doubt that the postbag and surgery case load of every hon. Member are dominated by the concerns of hundreds of individuals and their families who rely on the social security system for their financial survival and security. I am sure that each and every one of us can tell some horrific tales of individuals who feel and who have been let down by a system that is supposed to provide them with the financial support that they so often desperately need, yet all too often fail to get.
  It is a system that touches the lives of millions of people. In Northamptonshire alone, where my constituency of Corby is situated, it has been estimated that 100,000 people are dependent on means-tested benefit. If all those who were eligible were to claim their benefits, that figure would rise to nearly 124,000 people. That is one in five of the Northamptonshire population. Therefore, 20 per cent. of the people of Northamptonshire are on incomes so low that they qualify for means-tested benefits to prevent them from living below the official poverty line. A significant proportion of the population are failing to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. That is the reality of 18 years of Conservative government and the legacy that the Labour Government have inherited. It is, therefore, no surprise that the Government's key priority is to introduce a Bill to reform the welfare state.
  We must pledge ourselves to providing a better service for people who claim or who want to claim benefits. Rebuilding public support for that system is just as vital. Nationally, we spend £93 billion on the social security system through its five main agencies, yet, in direct contrast to public attitudes to the national health service, instead of celebrating that as evidence of a caring community in which no individual is left to live in poverty, the system that was put in place to meet people's needs is now viewed by claimants, staff and other agencies affected by it as over-complex, inefficient and manifestly unfair.
  It is nonsense that people who use the social security system have to provide the same information about themselves several times over to different parts of the same organisation. Those of us who have a lot to do with social security departments know that much of the information technology used to administer benefits is outdated and clearly needs replacing. That repetition of information using outdated technology is a terrible waste of time and effort for service users and departments, and for taxpayers, as it wastes significant amounts of money.
  Without doubt, there is a consensus that the task of modernising the welfare state and rebuilding public support for it requires a programme of reform to make the
  828
  system modern, efficient and fair. If we change public attitudes so that people respect and value the social security system, we will remove the undeserved stigma that is all too readily attached to people who rely on that system, and we will help to rebuild the morale and enthusiasm of the staff who work in it.
  I hope and believe that the Social Security Bill will be the first step in a programme of reform to rebuild the public's faith and confidence in the system. We can take it as read that the system is over-complex and unduly bureaucratic. We spend almost £4 billion just to administer it. The process of decision making and appeals is difficult to understand not only for those receiving benefits but for the staff who administer the benefits and many of the organisations that give advice.
  We have heard already that there are six different types of decision-making officers at the first tier, and that the variable quality of decision making by those officers is all too evident. The chief adjudication officer's statistics show that 68 per cent. of benefit decisions, such as those about family credit, involve possible payment errors.
  There are five separate tribunal jurisdictions for appeals, including the social security appeal tribunals, the medical appeal tribunals, the disability appeal tribunals and the child support appeal tribunals. The result of this complex and unwieldy system is that people who appeal against a decision must wait an average of six months, and sometimes up to two years, before their appeal is heard.
  Those problems are widely recognised in Government studies and by independent observers. They contribute directly to the underclaiming of benefits by people who are entitled to them. Northamptonshire county council's policy unit said:
  "The complexity of the system makes it difficult to understand and difficult to access which leads to a significant proportion of benefits going unclaimed every year."
  For every person who does not claim benefit, there is another who is possibly living below the poverty line and below the standards that we expect as we move into the 21st century.
  It is appropriate for me to take this opportunity to recognise the excellent work of welfare rights centres and citizens advice bureaux, which play a vital role in assisting individuals and families to make use of the existing, albeit inefficient, social security system. Last week, I attended the annual general meeting of the welfare rights advisory service in Corby. I am looking forward to speaking at the open day of the Corby citizens advice bureau in September. Those services are vital to people in my constituency on low incomes, who struggle to grapple with the complexities of the current social security system.
  In one year in Northamptonshire alone, the welfare rights centres and citizens advice bureaux dealt with 52,000 inquiries about benefits. Local research has shown that advice provision is one of the most effective ways of increasing benefit take-up rates, and consequently is an important way of tackling poverty and maintaining incomes for those on low incomes who are entitled to social security support. The Corby and Northampton welfare rights offices, which dealt with 27,000 of those inquiries, last year generated more than £5.3 million of annual income for local people. On behalf of the people who have directly benefited from their help and advice, I pay a heartfelt tribute to those agencies for that tremendous achievement.

  829
  We all want a system that does not require people to seek advice from welfare rights centres or citizens advice bureaux about obtaining the benefits to which they are rightly entitled, or to plough their way through the forms and the maze of the appeals system. I believe that the significant measures in the Bill will reduce the complexity, inefficiency and unfairness in the present system. I hope that the Bill will ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled, at the right level and with minimum bureaucracy and delay.
  The Bill will helpfully pave the way for reforming the system around the needs of claimants, so that people need give information about themselves only once. We should also make better use of information technology so that the system is efficient. The Bill will simplify the way in which decisions are made, and will streamline the appeals procedure. That will give a better service to those on benefit and to those wishing to claim, and will crucially cut waiting times. It will reduce the number of decision makers at the first tier from six to one. It will replace the many different tribunal jurisdictions with a single independent body. It will remove the rigid requirement for all cases to be heard by a three-person tribunal, and will enable the president to have the right expert for different appeals and for different claimants. It will allow tribunals to correct their own mistakes quickly and readily, rather than using the unwieldy system above the tribunal procedure. Those measures will substantially cut the waiting times that people currently have to endure. More important, the Bill will enable the public to be assured that the system of appeals is independent and impartial.
  I have focused primarily on measures in the Bill that affect procedures within the social security system, but I should like to draw attention to its impact on national insurance contributions, about which we have had only a small discussion. The Conservative Administration failed completely to ensure that there was an effective system for compliance with national insurance contributions. A minority of employers do not fulfil their responsibilities on national insurance contributions. That is unfair to employees, who lose out on their rights to benefits, and it is unfair to other employers, such as those in my constituency who pay their fair share.
  I am pleased that the Bill includes a number of measures on national insurance contributions to make the system fairer. It closes loopholes to limit avoidance, by allowing national insurance contributions to be charged on vouchers used by employers to pay their employees.
  The Bill will increase compliance by introducing a new system of cash fines for minor non-compliance, and, I hope, new criminal penalties for serious cases of deliberate evasion and fraud. It will also cut red tape. The Conservative party promised that, but never delivered it; we promised it, and, like so many of our other promises, that promise has been implemented. It will be easier for employers to keep their fair share.
  As others have pointed out, even when the Bill has been enacted more will need to be done to ensure that the welfare system works well and has the fullest possible public support. I am, however, confident that many measures in it will mean that users of our social security system will be better served, that staff will find it a better
  830
  system in which to work and that the public will have more confidence and faith in it. I think that it will become a system of which we can all be proud.
  8 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: The Secretary of State's presentation of the Bill struck me as disingenuous. The Bill is, fundamentally, about saving money—as has been pointed out, it is the "Peter Lilley memorial Bill"—and I think that it would have been better had the Secretary of State made that clear. As my hon. Friends have said, we do not oppose the Bill as such, although I have reservations about it, but I would have liked it to constitute the beginning of a radical reform of social security expenditure. That is what Conservative Members, and the nation as a whole, expect from the Minister responsible for welfare reform.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the figure of £93 billion social security expenditure. Before we know it, it will be £100 billion per annum. The issue is that some 30 million people who pay into the system also derive benefit from it, which leads to substantial administrative costs in the middle. Our welfare system should focus much more on those who are in real need. There are many areas in which the private sector could deal with requirements just as well as the public sector, and many respects in which the national insurance scheme should return to its early principles and become an insurance system again. Because it is not, our citizens do not understand it.
  As many hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill aims to block national insurance contribution avoidance. While we all welcome that, there is an obvious corollary: will it adequately investigate areas in which fraud still exists in the claiming of benefits? I think that we have all experienced that in our constituencies. The simplification and improvement of decision making and procedures for appeals must of course be welcome, for the many reasons that Labour Members have given. I am, however, concerned about clause 70, which I believe is designed to save some £50 million a year in expenditure. It has been argued that its impact may not be as bad as it appears on the surface, but the number of cases that I have encountered of need arising from the break-up of families, and from death, suggests that the restriction of the back-payment period from three months to one would involve a good deal of injustice. I also question whether the cost savings that are being sought will be achieved.
  Clause 23 also seems somewhat hopeful, although it may be necessary in that the simplifications entailed in the Bill are not so great that many applicants will not still need help in completing their forms, and the penalty for inadequate applications is likely to produce a vicious circle and still require the attention of social security staff. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, clause 68 constitutes a remarkable U-turn on the part of the Secretary of State. I am sure that, if she had been asked six months ago whether she expected to present a Bill to take away lone-parent families' premium child support, she would have sworn that that would not happen. As recently as January, the Prime Minister effectively pledged that the Labour party would not take such action.
  Let me make a practical point. To the extent that the Bill is the price for the more generous "minder" allowances, it seems to me that, if anything, it benefits the

  831
  better-off lone parents at the expense of the less well-off. I do not think that the two measures contained in the Budget and in the Bill do much to advance the cause of those who are really in need. My main point, however, is that the whole matter of lone-parent families needs a massive review. Legislation is needed to deal with a wide range of problems.
  In virtually every constituency case with which I have dealt, one or other parent has walked away from his or her family responsibilities in the knowledge that the state will pick up the bill. That means a terrible crisis for the parent who is left to bring up the children. What such people need above all is organisational help with, for instance, accommodation and employment. Our welfare system does not cope with such crises very well at the time when they occur.
  We need a stick-and-carrot approach. There are many families on ordinary incomes with children to bring up. I receive numerous letters from such people who resent the fact that others enjoy a better standard of living than theirs, and are entitled to benefits to which they are not entitled. The Government have merely tinkered with the position of lone parents in order to save money. I looked forward to radical Government proposals to reform lone-parent social security arrangements, and to deal with the circumstances in which society meets lone parents' needs. While I do not oppose the Bill, I feel that the Government are being disingenuous in terms of what they are doing, and in terms of what they have implicitly promised the nation—radical reform of social welfare.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: I am sure that we can offer the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) some radical reform in the months and years ahead. I hope that the Bill constitutes a first and important step in that direction.
  The hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham)—who is no longer in the Chamber—suggested earlier that Labour Members who planned to vote in favour of the Bill should be ashamed of themselves. She will be able to read in the Official Report that I shall support the Bill, and that I shall not be ashamed of doing so. Having spent 18 years working for an organisation called the Low Pay Unit—I took over the job from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is now the Minister for Welfare Reform—I, along with other Labour Members, require no lessons on the need to create a fair and efficient social security system. As we all know, the current system is neither fair nor efficient. It stigmatises those who must turn to it when they are at their most vulnerable. It is unjust, and it deprives people of their dignity and self-respect. I hope that the Bill will contribute to the creation of a social security system that will give people back their self-respect.
  I want to take a slightly broader brush to the issue—not a paint roller, I promise—and to examine the Bill in a wider context. Travelling to a conference on social security last week, I was amused to read in The Daily Telegraph that young ladies in a certain social stratum were nowadays being accosted by young men inquiring about the size of their grouse moors. There does not seem to have been much of a change since the Edwardian days when gardening manuals advised people that, no matter how small their gardens were, they should always allocate at least three acres to woodland.
  832
  We need to recognise that we are discussing the Bill in the context of a deeply divided society, in which the divisions have become still deeper in recent years. The inequalities have increased faster in this country than in any other in the industrialised world. Therefore, while some people make decisions about the size of their grouse moors, others have to make difficult decisions about whether they feed themselves or the kids, normally choosing the latter option, and whether they pay the gas bill or buy their child a new pair of shoes for school. The way in which the social security system operates at present adds insult to the injury of those people, who are literally on the edge.
  With impeccable timing—I shall not give it a large plug—today saw the publication of an important report called "Breadline Britain in the 1990s". It took a representative sample of the British population and asked them what they considered poverty really meant. In recent years, so much of the debate has been about whether poverty means not having a video recorder or a new pair of shoes.
  The report then took the generally accepted definition of poverty and considered how many people were in that position. The results are a shaming indictment of a nation that likes to consider itself one of the richest in the world. They show that, in the early 1990s, 11 million of our citizens were living in poverty, 3.5 million more than in 1983. A fifth of the total population were in poverty, measured by those generally accepted standards: 10 million of our citizens lived in inadequate housing as the living areas of their homes were damp, unheated or overcrowded; 7 million people were without essential clothing, such as a warm waterproof overcoat; 2.5 million children were forced to go without at least one of the things that they needed, such as three meals a day, toys or out-of-school activities; 5 million were not properly fed by today's standards; and 6.5 million people could not afford essential household goods such as a fridge, a telephone or carpets for living areas.
  Most shameful of all perhaps is the fact that, on the basis of the Department of Social Security figures, the number of children in poverty has increased from one in 10 in 1979 to one in three in the mid-1990s. We need to listen to some of the comments from Conservative Members with those figures in mind. That is the challenge that this new Government face, a challenge of enormous dimensions in terms of the scale of poverty. The Bill will make a small but important contribution towards ensuring that, as part of an overall package of reform, that problem can be addressed.
  We have often heard Conservative Members say that the United Kingdom is the "success story of Europe". We should bear it in mind that we account for one quarter of the poor throughout the European Union, and that was true even before the opt-out from the European social chapter.
  Mr. Webb: In the hon. Gentleman's long and distinguished time at the Low Pay Unit, did he ever advocate and support the principle of universal benefits such as child benefit and lone-parent benefit, and indeed advocate that they be increased?
  Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, especially as it is not a difficult one to get around.
  Mr. Flight: Answer the question.
  Mr. Pond: I shall do. I have long advocated and will advocate again this evening the principle of universal

  833
  benefits. One of the difficulties that we face in the social security system, and one of the reasons why our system does not deliver to the people most in need and stigmatises those who have to turn to it, is that it now so heavily depends on means-tested benefits. That not only creates dependency among people claiming those benefits, but traps us as a society in a situation where the expenditure escalates—the cost of economic failure. As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) well knows, I have also advocated an improvement in the level of benefits.
  In recent years, there has been an attempt to widen those divisions between the poorest, whom we are discussing tonight, and the rest of society. That was justified, apparently, on the ground that it would generate prosperity, but Britain has slipped down the prosperity league. Only Greece, Portugal and Spain have a lower national income per head than Britain. That is because inequality is not only socially divisive and politically dangerous, but economically wasteful.
  I do not think that any hon. Member believes that the Bill of itself is going to eradicate that poverty or that inequality, but we owe it to people who depend on social security benefits to ensure that the system delivers in the most effective and efficient way possible. That is one of the Bill's objectives and it is an important one. We need to ensure that the system uses the most modern technology available to deliver to claimants. We owe it to those on social security to ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect, and to the poorest families to ensure that, wherever possible, they are given every opportunity to lift themselves off social security and into work which provides them with a decent standard of living.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained, the Bill does not stand alone. It is part of a wider strategy of welfare to work. She referred to the fact that one in five non-pensioner households have no one in employment. That is almost the highest proportion in the EU. The creation of jobs and quality training places through the new deal will do far more to alleviate poverty than anything we might do in terms of social security benefit, so I argue that people who depend on social security should be treated with dignity and should be provided with a level of income that allows them to meet the needs of themselves and their families with self-respect. I also believe that it is important that, wherever possible, we allow people an escape route from dependency on benefits.
  As we know, many families are consigned to poverty because the parents have no opportunity to work. That is why the measures that were described earlier—the new deal for lone parents and the extra £200 million—are so important in providing real choices. As we know, most of those single parents, if they had the choice, would prefer to work. Perhaps most important, we must remember that the single largest group in poverty—the working poor—is little touched by the Bill.
  I have mentioned that I used to work for the Low Pay Unit. Its case load illustrates that, in current circumstances, for many people, paid employment is no escape from poverty. One young woman is employed as a typesetter and works 47.5 hours a week, just below the working-time directive limit, for a wage of £57.69 a week. If my sums are right, that is equivalent to £1.21 an hour.
  834
  Another is employed as an administrative supervisor in London for a wage of £1.55 an hour. Such pitiful rates of pay allow those people no escape from dependency on social security, however harsh that system is, and mean that they are consigned to relying on benefits.
  Those people are among the poorest, but they are not necessarily on social security. That is why it is so important that the national minimum wage is part of this package of measures—to provide people with earnings so that they can provide themselves with a living that is worthy of human dignity. The position of that group will also be greatly enhanced by the Bill's measures on national insurance contributions. Too often, people, especially those in low-paid and insecure jobs, are the victims of cowboy employers who swindle not only the national insurance fund out of revenue, but their employees out of entitlement to benefit. They not only consign those individuals to poverty while in work but help to ensure that, when they are not in work, they will not have sufficient entitlement to benefits to lift themselves out of poverty at those stages of the life cycle. The growth of means testing has meant that millions are entangled in what used to be described as a safety net but which is that no longer. We should make sure that, when people turn to the social security system for support, they can do so with dignity and can expect fairness. We should also make sure that as few people as possible have to turn to the system for help.
  The Bill is part of a process of modernising the welfare state in terms not just of new technology but of helping people to become active citizens instead of passive recipients of benefits. It is also about returning to people dignity and self-respect. That is why I am happy to support the Bill, which is an important element of a package of overall welfare reform.
  8.20 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) as I should like to take up some of his points. Before doing so, I will deal with the issue of computer evidence, which seemed to exercise the minds of some hon. Members.
  In a previous incarnation I taught criminal and civil evidence to students. I remind Conservative Members of the poll tax. The issue arose of whether computer printout was admissible as court evidence. The Bill's provisions simply allow computer appeal decisions to be admissible as evidence in subsequent proceedings. That is not so much an innovation in English law as pre-empting a loophole in terms of whether computer printouts are admissible in courts and tribunals.
  I am not afraid to acknowledge the Bill's antecedents as being part of the Department of Social Security programme for change. Its aim was to cut costs by 25 per cent. I have no problem about such objectives because we support efficiency and effectiveness. However, I have a severe problem over the absence of joined-up thinking among Conservative Members. The Conservative Government looked only for savings in the system but did not look at the effects on claimants. Did they deliver a fair, modern and efficient social security system? They did not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham made it clear that we have taken parts of the Conservative Government's initiatives as a starting point. However, the

  835
  philosophy of our approach to social security is very different. We want to take as many people as possible out of the system and put them back into work rather than consign large sections of the population to a claimant culture and think that we can ignore them, which is what the Conservatives did. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are at liberty to disagree.
  The Bill is simply the first step on the way to introducing a modern, efficient and fair system. Perhaps I may add an extra dimension to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham. We tend to forget the scope of the social security system. We have been reminded that a third of Government spending is on social security. The number of claimants is horrendous. There are more than 1 million claimants for attendance allowance; 7 million for child benefit; more than 5 million for council tax benefit; and 1.7 million for incapacity benefit.
  The social security system employs just under 100,000 people, but somehow we have achieved a system that is universally hated. Those who use it dislike it intensely and those who pay into it feel that it is not achieving anything. It is a classic worst-compromise scenario. No one is happy with it, and Conservative Members have never addressed that. Apart from the amount that we spend on claimants, I remind the House that 42 per cent. of beneficiaries are elderly and 24 per cent. of them are sick or disabled. They are the people least able to speak up for themselves. We have ended up with a system that is too complicated. It was designed to exclude people and to make it difficult for people to work out their entitlements rather than to be genuinely supportive.
  The northern edge of my constituency has a little area called Fiveways which houses many civil servants, some of whom run a brilliant helpline. People could ring an 0800 number and receive universal advice on benefits. I should have thought that it was in the interests of any responsible Administration to ensure that those who need to claim can do so effectively and fairly. However, the Conservative Administration saw fit to do away with that helpline. At the same time, the social security offices in Birmingham went ex-directory, making it doubly difficult to get in touch with anyone.
  The Law Society was one of the bodies that made submissions on the Bill, and I should like to refer to its submissions even if it did get some of them wrong. It gave the initiative an overall welcome because it thought that it would increase accuracy, speed and general effectiveness of first-tier decision making for social security benefits. We approve of that, but for Conservatives to conclude that we have swallowed their approach to social security hook, line and sinker means that they think that Labour Back Benchers do not have two brain cells to rub together and cannot think for themselves. That is wrong.
  For many years the system has not delivered what was needed for our people. We recognised that it required long-term renewal and we are starting by examining some of the procedures for first-tier decision making, but that is merely the beginning. Some hon. Members who sought a more radical approach to social security felt rather let down. I urge them to hold on and wait. [Interruption.] We may have a better track record than Conservative Members and the electorate did not trust them.
  836
  I particularly welcome the provisions in part II of the Bill, starting with clause 68, which deals with national insurance contribution measures. It is about closing loopholes to eliminate avoidance. If I have the wrong clause number, I am sure that Conservative Members will correct me.
  Mr. Burns: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I was particularly fascinated—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady giving way?
  Ms Stuart: I shall be generous and give way.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I was interested to hear her say that she whole-heartedly supports clause 68, which withdraws the lone-parent premium for child benefit and income support.
  Ms Stuart: I apologise—I meant clause 48, which deals with national insurance.
  I have always been struck by the unfairness of employers avoiding making the proper contributions for employees who are then excluded from the system. The Conservative Administration unfairly assumed that fraud was limited to individual claimants and tended to ignore what went on in companies. Part II of the Bill improves compliance and cuts red tape, which will be a great help.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that Government amendments will be tabled to deal with the absurd system of payment by means of Asda vouchers and the like, and with pensions, and the alignment of tax and national insurance in relation to share options.
  I support the Bill simply because, like the rest of my party, I believe that the social security system needs revising and modernising. It is not delivering a fair deal; it is not delivering to the people of this country what a social security system is supposed to deliver.
  The previous Administration were content to leave people in benefit dependency [Interruption.] I am simply making the point that the Bill is part of a much larger structure. The fact that we agree with some aspects of previous plans does not mean that we agree with the whole system. I shall vote for the Bill because I know that it forms part of the Government's larger structures and developments—and I can support it whole-heartedly.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have the chance to take part in the debate, despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and I have been sitting here on the Opposition Front Bench saying to each other that what is going on is becoming more and more bizarre. In my experience over the past four years in the House, it is almost unprecedented for the Liberal Democrats to have their reasoned amendment to a Government Bill selected by Madam Speaker.
  That is good news for us, but unusual because in the previous Parliament when the then Government produced a Bill to which the Opposition objected, both Opposition parties would table an amendment and invariably the one tabled by the main Opposition party was called. Now we

  837
  see a bizarre situation in which the Government appear to have taken over, almost lock, stock and barrel, what was previously a Conservative Government Bill. We are therefore the only people left to point out why the Bill has serious flaws.
  This morning's announcement has already been mentioned by one or two Members, so it is especially interesting that on this day of all days we find ourselves the main opponents of the Government on an important Government Bill, while the Tory party supports them.
  Mr. Browne: In view of the hon. Gentleman's pleasure at finding himself speaking to a Liberal Democrat reasoned amendment, perhaps he would care to look at its terms and say whether he agrees with the part which says that the Bill includes
  "measures which will reduce delays in, and increase the fairness of, the appeals process in social security and related areas, or which will reduce unnecessary public expenditure".
  Mr. Rendel: Of course I agree with the full wording of our reasoned amendment, only a small part of which the hon. Gentleman has quoted. It says many other things, and I shall comment on all of them. If the hon. Gentleman had not intervened at the very start of my speech he might have had the chance to hear more of the detail of what I intend to say about the amendment.
  I was pleased to hear that the Scottish nationalists intend to support our reasoned amendment and to vote on our side this evening. It has also been welcome, in a way, to have had some signs of support, albeit a little half-hearted, from some Conservative Members. It was especially interesting to hear the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), who unfortunately is no longer in his place, say that there might be occasions on which speed was not verything—indeed, that speed could sometimes lead to injustice. I will say more about that in a moment.
  Ironically, most of the support that we have had from Conservative Members has been along the lines that Labour has now gone well beyond what the Tories originally proposed in the Bill that they intended to bring before the House. The hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) both said that they were concerned about the measures affecting the backdating of benefits because the Bill went beyond the original Conservative proposal.
  I shall now pick up more or less where my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) left off. Towards the end of his speech, he said that parts of the Bill were acceptable and helpful. That is relevant to the recent intervention by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). However, my hon. Friend also pointed out that the Bill as a whole was deeply flawed. If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun cares to read the rest of our reasoned amendment he will see that that is our view. As has been said by other hon. Members, in the previous Parliament the Labour party would have supported that view.
  Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rendel: I will give way once more, but then I must get on with my speech.
  Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman do what the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) failed to do and read
  838
  the second half of the reasoned amendment rather than quoting the "flawed" document from the Law Society? Will he spell out clearly for hon. Members interested in the legislation, who may have to follow it through its course, why he thinks that it will result in more appeals going to judicial review?
  Mr. Rendel: I shall comment on that point in a moment. I knew that it was a mistake to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene again. He keeps asking for comments that I intend to make later anyway. Moreover, to be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon, I believe that my hon. Friend also commented on that matter to some extent, so it is unfair to criticise him for having failed to do so.
  The overhaul of the system that the Secretary of State mentioned in her opening speech is welcome to us, as it will be welcome to the country. There is indeed a lot wrong with the social security system and the way in which it works at present, and it needs a full overhaul.
  Of course we welcome measures to counter both fraud in the national insurance system and avoidance of national insurance contributions by companies. Of course we welcome the idea that there should be quicker decision making wherever that is possible. Clearly, justice depends to some extent not only on the right result but on that result being produced as quickly as possible. Where there can be greater efficiency through computerisation of the systems, we certainly want to support that.
  However, the real question that the House has to answer is: does the Bill achieve the aims that it sets out to achieve? The aims are clearly supportable, but if the Bill does not achieve them it should not be supported.
  I now come back to what was said by the hon. Member for Beckenham. There will always be the danger of some sort of pay-off between speed and fairness. Sometimes a decision taken more quickly—in haste, as it were—may have a cost in terms of fairness. A decision that is wrong cannot be "better", however quickly it is taken. It is also true that a decision taken quickly in the first instance may take longer in the end, because it may in itself be flawed. A decision may be taken by a single individual who may, as my hon. Friend said, be biased. That could cause it to be taken to a judicial review, which would delay the eventual result. If we find that as a result of the Bill the processes of judicial review are being used more frequently, that will justify what Liberal Democrats have said about it today.
  Clause 13 (7) has been the subject of controversy before, as a result of the flawed Law Society briefing. To those who read the clause carefully it is clear that although it may not make unfairness obligatory, in that a tribunal is not bound to ignore aspects outside the basis of the appeal which might be relevant, it certainly makes unfairness possible.
  I remember a case in my constituency in which a claimant was appealing against what he thought was a wrong decision on benefits. The tribunal to which he appealed decided that the case was correct and that the claimant should get the money. The tribunal also spotted something that neither the gentleman nor his legal advisers had spotted: he had made an earlier appeal and the decision in that case had also been flawed. As a result, he was able not only to get the benefits from that point onwards, but to have them backdated for a period of about 10 years. That resulted in a considerable lump sum payment which has made a huge difference to an individual who had been suffering great difficulties.

  839
  If the Bill becomes law, the intricacies of the law that enabled that man to get his money could be disregarded by a tribunal which saw its job as being more to deliver justice quickly than to deliver full justice.
  Ms Stuart: The English system is largely adversarial, not inquisitorial, and it is not in the tradition of the English court or appeals system to consider matters that are not part of the appeal. That
  "an appeal tribunal need not consider any issue that is not raised by the appeal"
  is standard practice in tribunal and court proceedings. I fail to see the deep flaw in the clause.
  Mr. Rendel: I am sorry that the hon. Lady cannot see the flaw. Standard practice or not, I should have thought that if the system can lead to injustice she, like me, would want to oppose it.
  Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rendel: No, the hon. Gentleman has intervened plenty of times already.
  I want to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on clause 68. In answer to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon, he said that in an ideal world the higher rate of single-parent child benefit would not be abolished. He said that it was okay to abolish it because the amounts involved were small and would not be helping many single parents. He appeared to forget that those single parents who are not in work are not helped by the current system—only those in work get the benefit—so the abolition of the benefit will damage only those who are in work.
  It does not seem very new Labour to help only those who are out of work. I thought that part of the ethos of the new Government was to try to encourage people to work. Is that not what welfare to work means? Yet clause 68 seems to do precisely the opposite. It is a silly clause from the point of view of new Labour's ethos on work and goes directly against the Government's aims. It may, as some Conservative Members said, equalise benefits for married and unmarried parents, but it does not equalise the costs incurred by different people, and especially those who are working, so it is reasonable that their benefits should not be equal.
  The Secretary of State said that in future clause 70, the backdating clause, would not really matter because the Government would ensure that everyone knew about the benefits available and everyone would always claim in time. There is an illogicality in that, because if it is true that all claims will be made in time, there is no point in withdrawing backdating as it will not save any money. Indeed, it would not matter if backdating were extended, perhaps back to where it was before the previous Government began to withdraw it.
  We welcome the principle that all claims should be made on time, but we are living in a fools' paradise if we assume that that will always happen. There will always be cases in which, for perfectly good reasons, people fail to make their claims in time. Sadly, many of those who slip through the net will be the recipients who most desperately need the backdating, not least because they may have fallen into debt during the period in which they
  840
  did not claim the benefits that were due to them. That is rough justice indeed for those for whom we should have the greatest care.
  The reasoned amendment refers to slower appeals, especially where judicial reviews are involved. It refers to appeals being less fair. Quicker justice does not always mean better justice; justice depends on quick decisions, but there is no justice if the decision is wrong. It talks about discouraging lone parents from working.
  Nothing that I have heard this evening has in any way dented the case that we have made. Many arguments have concentrated on the good parts of the Bill that we accept and support, but there has been little that has in any way dented our arguments about those parts that we oppose. Our arguments are supported by the Law Society, Age Concern, the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. They should also be supported by the House.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Paul Goggins: As some hon. Members may recall, 1996 was the United Nations International Year for the Eradication of Poverty. During the year, I had the privilege of chairing the newly formed United Kingdom Coalition Against Poverty, which is a 140-strong association of some well-known agencies such as Save the Children Fund and Oxfam, as well as local authorities, grass-roots organisations and pressure groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group, the Low Pay Unit and Church Action on Poverty.
  I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), to ask whether the then Government intended to introduce a plan for reducing inequality and poverty. He replied that they had no such plans, and added:
  "such plans are not needed in a well-developed industrialised nation such as the UK, which already has the social protection system to prevent poverty and maintain living standards".
  From the position that he then held, he might have thought that we had a system that prevented poverty and maintained living standards, but the reality is very different for people living at the sharp end of poverty in Britain.
  Poverty trebled in the 18 years of the previous Administration. If it is not too controversial, I should like to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) in tracking some of the developments in income inequality over the past few years. One in five people in Britain claim income support, and many others should claim it but are not aware or have not made their claim. In some parts of constituencies such as mine, every other household is in receipt of some form of means-tested benefit.
  The experience of those who claim benefit is frequently appalling, with long and complex claim forms, lengthy delays in appeals, and inaccurate calculations. It is a bureaucratic nightmare that compounds the sense of rejection and exclusion that many claimants feel. That is where the new Government must begin their reforms—not in the never-never land of the previous Government's imagination, or under the illusion that perfection is but

  841
  a grasp away, but in the reality of a system that is failing the taxpayer, and, most importantly, failing those who rely on it for their income.
  Ms Margaret Moran: I am sorry that only one Conservative Member is present, because my hon. Friend was making a point about the legacy of the past 18 years. The remains of the Conservative party have made great play of saying that the Bill is inherited from them. I listened to that argument with growing irritation, because the previous Government failed over 18 years to implement any of the things that they now claim as their initiative. For example, they singularly failed to introduce the new technologies that would have increased efficiency and allowed users of the benefit system to gain their fair entitlements.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady must keep her interventions brief. She cannot give a speech on top of a speech.
  Mr. Goggins: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.
  The priority of part I is to improve the system of decision making and appeals. Several hon. Members have mentioned a number of comments made by the chief adjudication officer. The figures for adjudication decisions on most benefits have remained the same or worsened in recent years. In almost half of income support cases, there are errors of fact, law or payment. For family credit claims, the failure rate is more than one third. We cannot go on tolerating a system in which only three out of 10 disability working allowance claims and only one in five social fund funeral payments are correct.
  In which other areas of life would consumers tolerate such appalling inefficiency? How long would people go on paying a garage to repair their car if there was a two in three chance that it would not work when they got on to the road? How long would people go on buying goods from a shop where there was a 50–50 chance of being sold faulty goods? But that is the reality that social security claimants face every day.
  The appeals situation is dire. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) testified to that. An adviser at Wythenshawe law centre in my constituency recently told me of a claimant she had been helping. The claimant had appealed against a decision taken in August 1995 to end her claim for incapacity benefit. The appeal, which the claimant won, was not heard until January 1997, 17 months later.
  The adviser also told me that, in her experience, the average wait for appeals in income support cases was around nine months, and that nothing gets through in less than six months. Most child support cases take at least a year. The adviser also told me of a claimant who had been refused incapacity benefit because she had not made sufficient national insurance contributions. She put in a claim for severe disablement allowance, which she was eventually awarded, but it took almost 12 months to reach a determination. Those are not isolated cases: they happen in every constituency, day in, day out.
  842
  Not only do claimants have to 'survive on reduced incomes while their appeals are being heard, but the process adds to the considerable personal pressure that many of them are under. That leaves them with a perception of the system as unfair and arbitrary.
  Concern has been expressed tonight about both the creation of a single-status decision maker and the move to single-member appeal bodies. I accept that some of those concerns were expressed out of a desire for justice and fairness in the system. However, what is fair about a system of appeals in which people who turn up with an adviser have a two in three chance of winning, people who turn up alone have a one in two chance, and people who do not turn up at all have a one in four chance? Such figures are more of a testament to human nature than to objectivity and equity.
  The Secretary of State made a strong argument for flexibility on the size of appeal bodies. I agree that it is not the structure of decisions and appeals that is paramount, but their quality. Of course, staff will need training. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend said that she would set ambitious standards and performance targets, and that they would have to be met by the staff involved.
  No one seems to have any problems, least of all me, with part II, which seeks to close loopholes in the national insurance system to stop people avoiding the payments that they should make and need to make to ensure that the social security system works.
  I am happy to turn to the two controversial aspects of part III: the proposals to stop the addition to child benefit for lone parents and to limit the backdating of claims to one month. I agree that, taken in isolation, such proposals might be regarded by some as punitive and unfair. That is why, as several Labour Members argued, we must consider them in the wider context.
  The prime purpose of the new Government, unlike the previous Administration, is not to trap people in poverty and reduce or abolish their benefits. As has been said repeatedly, our purpose is to get people off benefits and into jobs. It has been made clear that the best way to reduce pressure on the social security budget is to enable claimants to swap their dole cheques for pay cheques. That, after all, is what most unemployed claimants want.
  It is also clear that the Secretary of State has been prepared to act where the reforms of the previous Government would have created the deepest misery. That is why she decided to remove the single-room rent restriction on single people over 25 who are claiming housing benefit. Many hon. Members, including me, were relieved when she made that announcement. Most lone parents want to work. That is why, with the limited finance available, the Government's priority has been to improve child care provision and enhance the support and guidance offered to lone parents who are looking for jobs.
  It is worth emphasising that the best way to reduce the need to backdate is to create a more efficient, transparent and informative social security system that makes it easier for people to claim and deals with them accurately and quickly. We should not have a system that enshrines backdating as normal procedure. We also need to balance the new restriction against the earlier awards of benefits that will result from a more sophisticated and streamlined procedure.
  Mr. Webb: Before entering the House, the hon. Gentleman long had a proud reputation, to which I pay

  843
  tribute, for fighting on behalf of the poor. He knows that the Bill takes money from working lone parents. I understand that there is a corresponding plan by the Government to take money from non-working lone parents through phasing out the additional lone-parent premium. Presumably the poverty figures he cited will be worsened by that. Does he support the phasing out of lone-parent premium as well?
  Mr. Goggins: The package of measures that the Government are rapidly introducing into public policy will reduce the numbers of people living in poverty. We cannot look at policies in isolation—we must look at the overall package. We must be honest and say openly that politics is about determining priorities and the ability to balance what is desirable with what is achievable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) said, we are not uncomfortable, as Opposition Members wanted us to be. We are not embarrassed, ashamed, sick or sorry, as the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) maintained.
  Labour fought and won an election in which we promised to adhere strictly to departmental spending limits. We told people that, although we were determined to root out waste and install new values in public policy, all our problems could not be resolved overnight. We have inherited a system groaning under the burden of bureaucracy and inefficiency, and we are determined to get people off benefit and into work. We are also committed to a far-reaching reform of the welfare state.
  I believe that the British people are squarely behind us in this. Conservative Members have been saying, "This is our Bill." It is not—it is our Bill, because we won the general election. The difference between the Bill and other social security measures in the past 18 years is that it has been proposed by a Government who are determined not only to stay within budget but to improve provision. This Bill makes a start on a difficult road, but a road which will help to restore public confidence in a system which should be creating hope and security, rather than fear and poverty.
  8.59 pm
  Kali Mountford: Any legislation must be seen in its context, and the Bill can be seen in two contexts. The first is the Government's plans to reform social security and other measures to deliver a fair and just society. The second is the experience of our constituents. I want to deal with both.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) said that we must look at the total package, as the Bill does not exist in isolation. For example, a person who has been unemployed for more than two years will have great experience of the benefits system. He will be practised in dealing with benefits, but not in getting back to work. It is appropriate, fair and right that any Government—especially this Government, who promised as much at the general election—should deal with the problems of unemployed people. It is also right that the first priority is to deal with young people before they become practised in claiming benefit and become the sort of people who have no hope of employment.
  We must also look at lifelong learning and retraining schemes, so that older people have an opportunity to get back to work, and we must deal with the economy as
  844
  a whole to create the conditions in which that can happen. It is also right to listen to the experiences of lone parents, the vast majority of whom tell us that what benefits them is to go back to work.
  Mr. Letwin: How many lone parents has the hon. Lady encountered in her constituency who, as well as admirably moving off benefits into work, would like to lose £6 a week?
  Kali Mountford: That remark demonstrates that the hon. Gentleman has no experience of the lone-parent benefit. If he had, he would know that the amount of extra child benefit given to a lone parent is taken account of in their benefit and therefore has no material effect on their life.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Kali Mountford: I am sorry, but I have not developed the point at all. The hon. Gentleman referred to a person going back into work having been on benefit, and taking care of children in difficult circumstances. That £6 is of no great benefit to them while they are out of work, because it is taken into account in their benefit. It is also of no great benefit to a person receiving in-work benefits. What is of benefit to a lone parent is the experience of work and the capacity to get work. The Government propose to help lone parents by providing child support, so that they can pay for child minders whom they currently cannot afford. That precludes them from entering the labour market.
  Mr. Letwin: Perhaps I can develop the hon. Lady's point thus. I understand that the aim of the policy is that a lone parent who was previously out of work and on benefit will move back to work because of her Government's magnificent policies. That lone parent will lose the premium—a direct effect on their income. Is she aware of any lone parent in her constituency or elsewhere who would welcome that loss?
  Kali Mountford: Not one of my constituents has ever said to me. "Develop a policy that precludes parents from going to work," but that is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
  The legislation is designed to simplify the process, so that people can get their benefits faster, according to a more simplified, easier format, and have better access to the benefits that they need while they are not in work, incapacitated or in some other need.
  I should like to relate to the House the experience of some of my constituents. A person came to my surgery having recently made a claim for benefit on the advice of someone—the claim was later disallowed—because his son was suffering from multiple sclerosis. At the end of a lengthy process, he discovered that his family were not entitled to benefit and at that point he was given a leaflet. Once he had read it, he said, "Had I seen the leaflet in the first place, I would never have made a claim, because it would have been clear from the start that our family were not entitled to the carers benefit." He was quite happy with the decision reached, because it was clear to him that his family had never been entitled to claim. When considering the overall reform of the benefits system,

  845
  we need to target it precisely, to ensure that the system is more accessible, and so that people are given appropriate advice in the first place.
  If any of my constituents are, unhappily, bereaved, they are given immediate advice on the benefits available to them on the day they register the death of their loved one. That welcome system of advice was introduced by the previous Government in 1995. Unfortunately, its introduction was not compulsory, but at the discretion of local social services management. I am glad that my local management took up that opportunity, which means that bereaved people get immediate access to information so that they can make appropriate claims from day one, without any delay. It also means that no inappropriate claims are made. Such measures should be considered when reviewing the benefits system, to ensure that the legislation is targeted appropriately.
  Another of my constituents who is gravely ill recently had his benefits stopped after a medical examination. That person is obviously unhappy about that decision and has rightly appealed. He has already had to wait two months and it is likely that he will have to wait many more before a decision is reached. That wait and delay demonstrate to me that it is absolutely necessary to change the appeals process, and to do so quickly. We cannot wait for the overall review of the benefits system to help that person, who has already lost his car—his only means of getting about.
  That person is judged 90 per cent. disabled, has 40 per cent. lung capacity and is hardly able to breathe. It is surprising that he is required to appeal to have his benefits restored. The delay in reaching a decision on his appeal has already meant that he has lost his car. According to the average time it takes to process an appeal, he will probably be deprived of benefits for a further four months, but given his particular benefit, he is likely to wait eight months before his appeal is settled. That is not good enough for any of our constituents because of the pressure that it puts on them and the families they are trying to care for, and that which it exerts on their marriages, overall income and their necessary requirements.
  The complexity of the overall system has also been revealed by the treatment of another of my constituents, who is gravely ill with mesothelioma—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Almost.
  Kali Mountford: Almost.
  I know that hon. Members will recognise the seriousness of my constituent's illness. He has already spoken to representatives of eight different social services departments. The gravity of his illness means that time is of the essence. In order to get justice, he is trying to contact thoughtful and receptive people in each department, not necessarily the most appropriate, who will at least listen to his problems. Trying to appeal within the system is a minefield. My client has gone from one hospital to another and had to try to cross-reference the information from doctors with information from the benefits service. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) was talking about claims being sent to Blackpool, Doncaster, Wakefield and
  846
  goodness knows where else. My constituent has had the same experience: he has found someone in Blackpool who is being terribly helpful, but when I investigated his case, it seemed to me that he was talking to the wrong department altogether. That is the complexity that faces people.
  Information has to be gone through time and again because there is no data sharing. Some Opposition Members take a somewhat Luddite approach—perhaps they would prefer clerks to use a quill. In 1975, I joined the benefits service as a young and inexperienced clerk and one of my early responsibilities was to calculate the amount of benefit due to claimants. We did it in our head, because we were not allowed to use calculators, and vast volumes were required to make the calculations, which we made as accurately as we could. Then a computer system was introduced. We all detested it because we thought that it would take away our jobs and because we were more human and more caring; but I have to admit that quickly, after initial problems—it was not the most sophisticated of computers and a ticker-tape type of computer has since been developed—the information technology meant that the system speeded up, people got decisions more quickly and the decisions were more accurate.
  Since then, the computer system has been developed further. Given that the computer system introduced into the unemployment benefits service was originally designed for the social security system and was supposed to be introduced by the Conservative Government, I am somewhat surprised by some hon. Members' resistance to our using information technology to speed up the process. I am also surprised by the confusion about whether information and decisions from the computers would be acceptable. Such output has been acceptable in England for some time: the unemployment benefits system has been using computer systems and computerised decision making for many years, and the output from those computers has been used in tribunal cases. There is nothing new there then, although they do say that there is nothing new under the sun, so we should not be too surprised.
  I now refer to national insurance contributions fraud. In my time in the benefits system, I have seen people whose benefit was denied, not because of anything that they had done, but because their former employer never paid over their contributions. The effect of that on people's lives is extraordinary, because of the shock of discovering that they are not entitled to the benefit that they always thought was their support and security in times of need and because of the gross fraud committed against the state. Opposition Members made great play of the fact that Labour Members have supposedly always supported the fraudster, but that has never been the case. What has, however, been wrong with the system until now is the emphasis on one type of fraud—claimant fraud. I welcome the fact that that inequality is addressed in the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Stephen Hesford: I should like to address one narrow aspect of the Bill: clause 23 and its potential effect on a large number of my constituents who are pensioners—a section of the community that has not yet been mentioned in the debate.

  847
  Before I discuss that, however, let me say that I will take no lessons from Conservative Members as to the ownership of the Bill, because my constituents well recognise that Conservative Members' cards were marked at the general election. They were rejected—as was their approach to the Bill—at the general election, and my constituents are very pleased that these measures—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but my constituents are very pleased indeed that these measures are now in the hands of a Labour Government.
  Not for the first time in my short time in the House, the Liberal Democrats reveal schizophrenia in their approach. They welcome our welfare-to-work programme, and they have been repeatedly told tonight that the Bill is part of that programme. Do they accept the Bill, do they accept the welfare-to-work programme and do they accept that the Bill is a key part of that measure? I shall sit down if the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) wants to intervene.
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the invitation to intervene. If he heard my remarks earlier, quoting the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), who is in charge of part of the Government's welfare-to-work policy, he will recall that the hon. Gentleman described the abolition of one-parent benefit as irrational as part of a welfare-to-work strategy. Therefore, although, naturally, we want people to come off welfare and into work, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not expect us to accept every element of the package, especially the parts that have been described by Labour Members as irrational and perverse.
  Mr. Hesford: I return to my original point. In this country there are more than 10 million pensioners, more than half of whom are on state benefit—the ordinary state pension. Many of those pensioners rely on income support. The Bill will be key for them. There are 10,000 pensioners in that position in my constituency; only two constituencies have an electorate with a larger proportion of pensioners. Those pensioners would not thank me if I did not ask Ministers to consider clause 23 and to give an assurance about it.
  I broadly support the Bill; I want to ask only one question. Subsection (1) reads:
  "The powers conferred by this section are exercisable in relation to persons who fail to comply with information requirements."
  Subsection (2) reads:
  "Regulations may provide for—

  (a) suspending payments of a relevant benefit, in whole or in part;

  (b) the subsequent making in prescribed circumstances of any or all of the payments so suspended"—

  and indeed stopped.
  I know from my mailbag and surgery that the most vulnerable claimants of that type of benefit are pensioners, and it would be a worry to pensioners in my constituency if they believed that they might fall foul of that part of the Bill, through no fault of their own. Many of them attend offices with friends because they cannot cope with the system.
  I seek an assurance from Ministers, therefore, that when the regulations are drafted, a sympathetic view will be taken of vulnerable members of society, so that they will
  848
  not be—as I am sure they are not meant to be—purposely caught by the regulations. I hope that sympathy will be shown to people such as the pensioners in my constituency.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on his maiden speech. Every hon. Member has to go through the torturous, nerve-racking experience of making a maiden speech, and the hon. Gentleman's speech was impressive for its fluency, wit and confidence. I am sure that the House looks forward to further contributions by the hon. Gentleman in debates not only on social security but on issues throughout the political spectrum.
  This has been a fascinating debate to which to listen, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the most ironic of those reasons, as my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) so ably said, is that, although the Bill has been presented by the Secretary of State, supported by all her senior Cabinet colleagues, it is mainly the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Plagiarism is the highest form of flattery, and the right hon. Lady has certainly paid my right hon. Friend the greatest of compliments by lifting his Bill, almost lock, stock and barrel, and introducing it to the House.
  I want to be conciliatory. I am not sure whether to congratulate the Secretary of State on her nerve, gall and barefaced cheek, given that, in opposition, she was on record as being totally opposed to most of the contents of the Bill. On the other hand, perhaps I should offer her my condolences: she has lost her battle for her beliefs in the past; now she has lost control of the policy-making decisions in her remit in government, and has had the views of others foisted on her.
  The introduction of the Bill prompts the question: who is really in charge of social security policy? It appears that the country has a Secretary of State who is in office but not in charge. That must be a difficult—even humiliating—position for the right hon. Lady, but she is of course used to being the human shield for others. Who persuaded or coerced her to accept this Bill? In the past, she has publicly declared much of it to be anathema to her beliefs.
  The answer lies partly in what has been done to the Department. The Labour party proudly told us that it was going to think the unthinkable on welfare and end welfare as we know it. It was going to design and deliver a system that would ensure a hand-up, not a hand-out. Well, the right hon. Lady has certainly had a hand-up to the Cabinet table, but she has not received any hand-outs in terms of responsibilities or decision making.
  Between them, as the Bill shows, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have ensured that the right hon. Lady is in charge of nothing. Welfare reform is split between two junior Ministers. Overshadowing her, like Banquo's ghost at the banquet, is the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is responsible for the reform of the welfare state. He has been strangely silent, kept under wraps. On the instructions of the Minister without Portfolio, I understand, he is not allowed to lunch with journalists or speak with them in case he lets any cats out of the bag. Interestingly, after a brief interlude spent listening to the Secretary of

  849
  State's speech, the right hon. Gentleman scuttled out of the Chamber, never to be seen again—indeed, he is still not here. As was said of a former Conservative Prime Minister just before the war, the right hon. Gentleman is an air-raid shelter for the Government's policies.
  Meanwhile, reform of the pension system resides with the junior Under-Secretary. Perhaps most galling of all to the right hon. Lady, reform of the tax and benefit systems has been awarded not to a Minister but to a friend of the Chancellor, the business man, Martin Taylor. On welfare to work, the Chancellor has also stepped in and appointed another crony of his, Sir Peter Davis, to head the new task force—including the scheme for lone mothers so eagerly talked about by the right hon. Lady at the time of the Budget.
  Sadly for the Secretary of State, the truth is that she can talk about these policies and initiatives as much as she likes, but she cannot take charge of them—
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman says that because I am a woman.
  Mr. Burns: I assure the right hon. Lady that it is not because she is a woman: it is because of her brain power. Isolated and humiliated, she swallows her pride while the policy-formulating and decision-making processes are taken out of her hands and Bills such as this one are foisted on her—despite a litany of quotations in which she expressed her opposition to many of the proposals in it.
  Despite the Secretary of State's previous misgivings, the Bill follows a new, well-established pattern from new Labour: say one thing, do another. It is becoming a well-established, cynical performance. We have seen it over pensions, we have seen it over taxes, with 17 tax rises in the Budget earlier in this month, and we have seen it over asylum seekers. Now, we are seeing it over the Social Security Bill.
  The Bill's overall aim is to improve efficiency in the delivery of services by simplifying decision making and appeals and to save taxpayers' money through a variety of measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden envisaged that the Bill would contribute towards cutting the Department's administrative costs by at least 25 per cent. when he foreshadowed it at the beginning of last year.
  The then Opposition, who were motivated by a cynical and ruthless policy of attacking everything that the then Government did, were seriously caught out in attacking the proposals when a letter from the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights, the then shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the then shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, was leaked, suggesting that, despite the public rhetoric of the Labour party, privately it believed that not only were the savings achievable and feasible but that it was actually proposing to pursue a similar policy.
  Mr. Field: That is right.
  Mr. Burns: As the right hon. Gentleman says, that is right.
  850
  As The Daily Telegraph said, which I am grateful the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed:
  "An Opposition attack on Government cuts in welfare backfired yesterday with the disclosure that Labour was contemplating similar efficiency savings".
  The Times was probably even more explicit when it reported:
  "Labour was accused of breathtaking hypocrisy yesterday after a shadow Treasury Minister privately suggested that the proposed £1 billion cuts in social security spending were 'perfectly feasible'."
  The cynicism of Labour's position has been confirmed by the Bill, which is part of the cost-saving exercise.
  That is not the only example of Labour's cynical disregard of the facts. Let us take clause 35, for example. The clause allows regulations to be made that will permit a local authority to suspend payment of housing benefit and council tax in prescribed circumstances, particularly where entitlement is in doubt, pending resolution of a query or appeal. The official Opposition do not oppose that, because we were going to do it if we won the election. What does stick in our throats, however, is the fact that the principle of suspension of benefit was attacked by the Labour party when in opposition.
  In opposition, only a year ago, the Secretary of State's predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, attacked the suspension of benefits when he said that the
  "measures affect the genuine and the non-genuine alike".—[Official Report, 24 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 39.]
  For good measure, he added that the principle was "inhumane and unjust".
  Possibly the Secretary of State's greatest problem and the greatest swallowing of humble pie comes with clause 68, which is probably better known as the clause that dare not speak its name. In the right hon. Lady's "Dear Colleague" briefing note for Members of Parliament of 10 July, she mysteriously made no mention of the clause. In true news management style, no doubt under the guiding hand of the Minister without Portfolio, the letter extolled the virtues of the Bill, but nowhere in it was clause 68 mentioned—no doubt because, despite the public comments of the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), the Government wanted to try to hide in a 78-clause, seven-schedule Bill the proposal which is such anathema to true Labour.
  Clause 68 proposes to set out the framework for implementing the previous Government's policy to reduce the rate of child benefit for lone parents to the level for couples. It is a move towards an even-handed treatment of one and two-parent families by reducing the additional child benefit of just over £6 to the same level as that paid to a couple with a child.
  When this was announced in the Budget in November 1996, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), not one to miss a flight of hyperbole, told the House that the cut in benefit to lone mothers
  "is not fair to the families of women who bring up children on their own. They will be worse off. If that is what he thinks is a family policy, he does not understand how families work."—[Official Report, 28 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 501.]
  In January this year, when pressed on that issue by Polly Toynbee of The Independent, the redoubtable right hon. Lady said—
  Dr. Gibson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to interrupt his diatribe. Which party allowed people

  851
  to be paid in Archie Norman-Asda vouchers? Which party introduced legislation that allowed people to be denied benefit? The hon. Gentleman talks of our cynicism, but we throw it back at him: the Conservatives are the cynics, not us.
  Mr. Burns: I find that intervention extraordinary. If the hon. Gentleman were to waste time studying the legislation, I suspect that he would not find any measures of that nature. Such things happen all too often, regardless of the Government of the day. I suspect that some sharp cookie looked for a way of avoiding national insurance or tax, and his attempt was discovered. To her credit, the right hon. Lady has announced that she will amend the legislation and mop it up. In the circumstances, that is probably the right way to proceed. [Interruption.]
  The Minister for Welfare Reform is trying to cause trouble and mischief. The allegation was not that Asda had come up with this wheeze, but that some bright person had bought Asda tokens to get around the tax and national insurance regimes. We cannot blame Asda for that—just as we could not blame the national book token scheme if people were to abuse it. The right hon. Gentleman should shut up and listen to the speech because, despite his knowledge, he might learn something.
  As I said before I was interrupted, the right hon. Lady was interviewed by Polly Toynbee in January this year. In that article, Ms Toynbee writes:
  "So, will she or won't she"—
  the right hon. Lady—
  "introduce Tory legislation to cut single parents' benefits? 'No, of course not', she says when asked."
  So spoke the champion of lone mothers, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham. What did she say this month? In a recent press release, her mouth awash with humble pie, she declared:
  "Withdrawal of entitlement to lone parent family premiums in income support for new claimants will take effect in April 1998. Withdrawal of the lone parent premium rate of child benefit is subject to necessary legislation and is now expected to come into effect from June 1998."
  The right hon. Lady can huff and puff as much as she likes, but she is hoist on her own petard by her previous statements. No amount of bluster and waffle can disguise the fact that she has been totally overruled, and, with no shame or pride, she is happy to implement her master's instructions.
  Ms Harman: Who is that?
  Mr. Burns: The right hon. Lady's right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has protected her so often in the past. As she knows better than most, he has been particularly good to her in the past 18 months or so and rescued her from several scrapes. I suspect that the right hon. Lady owes him one, and will do whatever he bids.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is ranging wide in his remarks. While I am on my feet, I must say that some hon. Members on the Back Bench have been extremely noisy during the debate. I ask them to be silent.
  Mr. Burns: On clause 68, it is no wonder that colleagues of the right hon. Lady, for example, the hon. Members for
  852
  Brent, East and for Selly Oak, are seething and prepared to take a principled stand for what they believe in—not only on the primary legislation but on the secondary legislation which will emanate from it.
  The changes to child benefit will require secondary legislation. I suspect that old, true Labour will stick by its principles and make its views known when it has an opportunity to demonstrate on the Floor of the House its commitment to what it believes in.
  I shall be grateful if the Under-Secretary who is winding up will tell the House when he expects regulations to cut the child benefit element of income support to be laid before the House.
  I do not want to add to the Secretary of State's woes, but I should like, as it has come up once or twice during the debate, to raise the issue of clause 70, about which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) spoke so eloquently. It is a nasty, vindictive little clause which was not proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden.
  Clause 70 introduces a new time restriction for backdating benefit claims from the current three months to one month. It was not—as one would expect—in the right hon. Lady's "Dear Colleague" letter of 10 July, for the simple reason that it attacks pensioners and the most frail and vulnerable in society. Although I accept that a three-month time scale for claiming benefits is not unreasonable, restricting it to one month will devastate tens of thousands of vulnerable people. As the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has pointed out, it will mean, for example, that widows suffering the shock of bereavement could have only a month to make a claim for widow's benefit. How can the Government justify imposing such an intrusive requirement on widows in their grief?
  I must confess that I am surprised that clause 70 is in the Bill, because the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who is now an Under—Secretary of State for Social Security, has in the past criticised the previous Government for not ensuring that there is a high take-up of benefits, and this measure will reduce benefit entitlement and save £57 million from the most needy in our society. In the light of clause 70, previous comments by the hon. Gentleman are particularly hollow. He said:
  "A high take-up is essential to ensure that the poorest in our society receive the meagre income to which they are entitled through the benefits system."—[Official Report, 16 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1258.]
  As I said at the beginning, the Bill is primarily that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. For that reason we will not oppose it tonight, but we reserve our position on a number of issues in Committee, not least clause 70, and we will want to study the fine print carefully.
  The Bill is not the Secretary of State's finest hour. In her heart of hearts, she knows that her past rhetoric in opposing many fundamental parts of the Bill shows her today to be a pawn of her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Her abandonment of her so-called beliefs, and her inability to fight for her beliefs, will in the coming months haunt her in the eyes of her civil servants, the public and her colleagues. The Bill has highlighted her political impotence.
  9.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): This has been a lively and, generally, well-informed debate on an important Bill. It has shown that many hon. Members agree that welfare reform should be—and is—high on the national agenda.
  Creating a modern, active welfare state is at the heart of the Government's commitment to tackle poverty and dependency, and to strengthen community and family life. For far too long the welfare system has given claimants a hand-out rather than a hand-up. It has ignored their aspirations and responsibilities. It has paid the growing costs of failure, rather than investing in success.
  We aim to extend opportunities to all so that no one is excluded and everyone plays a part; to help people to take responsibility for themselves and their families; to rebuild a strong and cohesive society. We are already offering a new deal for the young and long-term unemployed and giving practical help to lone mothers who want to work. We are developing a national child care strategy and conducting a wide-ranging review of provision for retirement.
  There are many challenges ahead as we set about reshaping the welfare state for the 21st century. The Bill lays firm foundations for the future. It will help to create an active, secure and integrated system of welfare delivery. It tackles the outdated, cumbersome procedures which prevent customers from obtaining the service that they deserve. It will ensure that all employers meet their responsibilities to pay national insurance contributions and makes it easier for them to do so. It shows that we are committed to doing all that while living within budget, even if that means being prepared to take tough decisions.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on his maiden speech, its context and humour. I also congratulate him on supporting the Bill tonight, so ensuring that his constituents have a modern, fair and efficient social security system. I welcome his support for the enhanced use of information technology in achieving that end. He paid a generous tribute to his predecessor which was clearly welcome in the House. However, he was on rather weaker ground when he was discussing the fortunes of Leeds United football club. As a Manchester Member of Parliament, I have every confidence that the championship will return to its rightful and spiritual home in 1998.
  I am pleased that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) readily accepted the flaw in the reasoned amendment in the name of the Liberal Democrats. We welcome that. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). The amendment says that the Bill
  "will"—
  I emphasise that—
  "will result in a slower appeals process, with more appeals being the subject of judicial review".
  The hon. Member for Newbury used the word "could" rather than "will". We need to be clear what the Liberal Democrats are saying. Are they saying what will happen as a matter of certainty or are they merely speculating? It is our strong contention that the issues that they have raised are addressed in the Bill.
  First, the reasoned amendment says that the Bill will result in a slower appeals process and more judicial reviews. We dispute that. We are retaining an independent
  854
  appeals system and current rights will be protected. There is no reason to suppose that more people will have cause to seek judicial review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is introducing a new right of appeal on contribution questions. Her proposals will make appeals quicker, not slower. Better explanations, the ability to correct decisions and the fast-tracking of hopeless appeals will result in the freeing-up of the tribunals' time, enabling them to deal with cases with genuine grounds for appeal in a quicker and, more importantly, more considered way. The separation of judicial and administrative functions will result in better organisation and control, which will also reduce waiting times, without affecting judicial independence.
  The amendment says that the appeals process will be less fair. We dispute that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has maintained the right of appeal to an independent tribunal and tribunals will have the right expertise to deal with the type of cases before them. A legally qualified chairman is not necessary if no legal point is at issue. We want to ensure efficiency and fairness in the system.
  The amendment goes on to say that the Bill will discourage lone parents from working. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that our priority is to help lone parents into work and many hon. Members today have reinforced our commitment to ensure that that happens. We shall invest in practical measures to get them back to work, to help them with job shares, to help them to find child care, to build their confidence and motivation and to develop the appropriate skills to find work.
  The new deal for lone parents was launched yesterday. I launched it in the Halesowen office in the north Worcestershire area, and I was amazed at the enthusiasm, commitment and overwhelming desire of the staff and public to ensure that the new deal works for lone parents. Many lone parents have contacted that office: they want an interview as soon as possible so that they can have a personal adviser to help them get work. That is our priority, and that is what we are committed to achieving through these measures.
  Mr. Rendel: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the new deal for lone parents, but that has nothing to do with the Bill. Does he accept that the measures in the Bill are a discouragement to work?
  Mr. Bradley: The Bill has everything to do with the issues that I am raising, because we are determined to ensure that lone parents in work are £50 a week better off. The family credit measures will ensure that appropriate child care facilities are available to them.
  Reference has been made to sharing information and to the use of computers. We are talking not about big brother, but about a sensible approach to ensuring that information technology is used in the future to give customers a better service. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) made excellent points about the use of technology. I stress that the Secretary of State is accountable for every decision, whether it is made by staff or computers. What is important is not machines and processes, but responsibility and accountability for the outcomes of those processes.
  Hon. Members have suggested that transferring all decision making to the Secretary of State will mean a loss of independence. I assure the House that decision makers

  855
  will still be impartial, and will decide cases according to the facts and the law. The law as it stands makes deciding customers' claims complicated and time consuming. The Bill will create a simple, transparent system, which will be better for the staff who run it and certainly better for the customers who use it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) referred to the chief executive's report. The chief executive will produce a report and provide comprehensive monitoring of the system. The report will take account of the views of the public and will meet the criteria laid down by Ministers. We want the new appeals system to be monitored effectively. Monitoring reports will be submitted to Ministers and the public. The National Audit Office will continue to have a role in monitoring and reporting to Parliament on the agency's performance. In addition, the president of the tribunal service will report on the standard of decision making in cases that go to appeal. We are seeking comprehensive ways of monitoring the system in the future to ensure that it is accountable to Parliament.
  Many hon. Members have raised the issue of backdating. That has been dealt with in the debate, particularly in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) and for Colne Valley. I do not retract one word of what I said about ensuring that claimants receive their entitlement through a proper take-up of benefits. That is totally different from backdating. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun rightly pointed out, clause 70(2)(b) contains hardship provisions, and we shall explore that further in Committee in due course.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) spoke warmly about the benefits helpline, which the previous Government abolished. Given that the Government are now penalising people who are ignorant of the benefits system, will the hon. Gentleman reinstate that helpline as a quid pro quo?
  Mr. Bradley: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are working within departmental budgets, but we want to ensure the creation of a fast, efficient and effective system—which we believe that the Bill will deliver—and we shall consider all the ways in which that can operate in practice.
  The provisions relating to national insurance contributions may not have been given enough prominence in the debate, although they were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Hope) and for Edgbaston. The measures in the Bill, and the further changes announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, close loopholes in the law that have allowed some employers to avoid paying their share. Those moves will ensure that contributions are paid on non-cash payments under restricted covenants, and on payments in vouchers. That last provision will be known in future as the Asda amendment.
  To deal with minor non-compliance, the Bill will replace the current outdated criminal offence with a modern and effective cash penalty regime, aligning the system with the Inland Revenue's penalty regime and giving the Contributions Agency similar powers to take distraint action to recover debts.
  National insurance fraud is a serious offence. The Bill introduces tough new criminal penalties for fraudulent evasion, but it will also actively help businesses by
  856
  ensuring that certain taxes on benefits and expenses are dealt with in the same way by the tax and national insurance systems. I hope that hon. Members in all parties will welcome those measures. As many hon. Members have pointed out in the debate, the House cannot condone fraud, wherever it may occur. We are determined to root it out, and to use all the measures in the Bill—particularly those relating to information sharing—to ensure that it can be weeded out at the earliest opportunity.
  Throughout the debate, Back Benchers have made excellent speeches. I especially commend the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Corby, as well as the wide-ranging speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston. All those hon. Members can bring a wealth of experience to debates on the Bill. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East—whose constituency is next to mine—for the expertise that he has gained from his work with Church Action on Poverty. He spoke with understanding and insight about what happens in the real world—about people trying to claim benefits and becoming bogged down in a mass of regulations, appeals and decisions that they do not understand. That, I think, is what the Bill is all about.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley and for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) emphasised the fact that the aim of the Bill was to provide a better service and an understandable system, and to ensure that people received their rights and entitlements at the point at which they needed them. We want to make it unnecessary for those people to go through the appeals system and a labyrinth of decision making. I am sure that many Labour Members who have spoken will prove to be very good members of the Standing Committee, and that we shall have excellent debates in Committee on all the matters that have been raised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West referred to clause 23. We shall consider the clause in Committee, and I am sure that we shall be able to allay his fears then.
  The Bill tackles fundamental problems in welfare delivery and national insurance security to set us on the road to a modern, open and efficient social security system. We have to put the whole Bill in the context of our general welfare reform programme. It would be wrong for the House to believe that the Bill is the beginning and the end of that process. It is a building block along that path and we are determined, in the months and years to come, to use it.
  Tonight, we are setting out a framework for transforming the delivery of welfare. The Bill radically overhauls complex legal arrangements that have grown up piecemeal over the years. It will enable the Department to develop modern business processes and to make better use of modern information technology, making significant strides towards a streamlined and integrated service. It will secure the national insurance system by reinforcing employers' responsibility to make fair contributions. It will help all employers by cutting red tape, while cracking down on serious cases of fraud. It will protect the integrity of the system by closing loopholes used for avoidance and improve consistency by aligning certain tax and national insurance rules.

  857
  In our manifesto, we made a commitment to live within spending limits. The Bill makes provision for changes announced in the Budget that enable us to deliver on that. Our spending priorities reflect our commitment to use limited resources where they are most effective and to provide active help to people on benefit. Our decision not to extend the single-room rent to people aged over 25 was clearly a step in that direction and a change from the policy of the previous Government. However, in taking that decision, we had to take other tough decisions. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed the decision, so they have to accept, within the spending limits, the consequences of that action.
  With the Bill, we shall continue to pursue our new active approach to social security. We want to build a modern welfare state that supports work, savings and honesty and that helps people to meet their responsibilities. To achieve that, we need a system that is straightforward, efficient, open, simpler for the staff who run it and clearer for the customers who use it. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 304.

  Division No. 64]

  [9.57 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Keetch, Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Norris, Dan

  Burnett, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Chidgey, David

  Rendel, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Sanders, Adrian

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

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Wallace, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Webb, Professor Steve

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Gorrie, Donald

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hancock, Mike

  Willis, Phil

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Harvey, Nick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mr. Paul Tyler and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beard, Nigel

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Benton, Joe

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Berry, Roger

  Austin, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Banks, Tony

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Barnes, Harry

  Blizzard, Bob

  Barron, Kevin

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Battle, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Borrow, David

  858

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burgon, Colin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Byers, Stephen

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caborn, Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Graham, Thomas

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cann, Jamie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Gunnell, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hanson, David

  Church, Ms Judith

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, John

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Drew, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Edwards, Huw

  Laxton, Bob

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Lepper, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Etherington, Bill

  Levitt, Tom

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Livingstone, Ken

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lock, David

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Love, Andrew

  Flint, Caroline

  McAllion, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Forsythe, Clifford

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  859

  McDonnell, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  McFall, John

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  McLeish, Henry

  McNulty, Tony

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  MacShane, Denis

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Rogers, Allan

  McWalter, Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  McWilliam, John

  Rooney, Terry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mallaber, Judy

  Roy, Frank

  Mandelson, Peter

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Marek, Dr John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Salter, Martin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sawford, Phil

  Martlew, Eric

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maxton, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meale, Alan

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Michael, Alun

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Singh, Marsha

  Milburn, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Spellar, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mudie, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Olner, Bill

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pike, Peter L

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Todd, Mark

  Pond, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Pope, Greg

  Trickett, Jon

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Purchase, Ken

  Watts, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Radice, Giles

  860

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wray, James

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wise, Audrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wood, Mike

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

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

  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor under the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided; and

  (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of that Fund.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which—

  (a) under any other Act are payable into the Consolidated Fund; or

  (b) under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are to be taken as paid towards the cost of the National Health Service in Great Britain.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Andrew Tyrie be discharged from the European Legislation Committee and Mr. Quentin Davies be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Rural Hospitals (Devon)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
10.12 pm
Mr. John Burnett: It became clear some months ago that the North and East Devon health authority was looking for savings. It predicted overspending of about £2 million this year—slightly below 1 per cent. of its annual expenditure—and further overspending for the year 1998–99. My aims today are to highlight the unfairness of the formula for apportioning public money between health authorities and to expose the decision temporarily to close Winsford hospital, pending a review, for what it is: precipitate, ill considered and illogical.
In the days of the rate support grant, it was said that only three people knew the formula by which it was arrived at: one was dead, the second was insane and the third was joining the second. I dare say that the formula for apportioning cash between health authorities is equally arcane and complex. Nevertheless, I am led to believe that it discriminates unfairly against rural areas in several ways.
The formula does not take account of the distance and time involved in delivering health services in rural areas. A district nurse, midwife or doctor working in a rural part of Britain can hope to treat only a fraction of the number of patients that his or her urban counterpart can treat. I understand that no allowance is made for that in the formula.
Matters such as car ownership are used as a measure of affluence. In rural areas, ownership of a car is not a luxury but a necessity because of the paucity—often the non-existence—of public transport. One must have a car or go nowhere. Many poor people who live in the country have to make considerable sacrifices to own and run old cars to get them to the shops, the post office or the doctor. Such issues are often referred to as the sparsity factor. I hope that the Government will consider the formula, and consider including a sparsity factor to ensure a more equitable distribution of funds between health authorities.
I described the temporary closure of Winsford hospital, pending a review, as precipitate, ill considered and illogical. I have known Winsford hospital for many years and visited it many times. It is a 15-bed hospital in the countryside, near the large village of Halwill Junction, which is designated for significant growth in the emerging local plan. The small town of Holsworthy is more than 10 miles away, and the North Devon district hospital at Barnstaple is 35 miles away. Winsford is in the centre of a large geographical area and although the population that it serves in scattered, it comprises many thousands more people than the health authority suggests.
The lack of consultation by the health authority and other procedural failures leading to the closure decision are the subject of judicial review proceedings. The decision stunned the local community because the health authority tried to close Winsford four years ago. In January 1994, Dr J. M. Dodds published her report on the hospital. I should like to draw the House's attention to some of her conclusions. She said:
"More than half the patients whose care I studied had in addition to their V60 admissions a significant number of acute hospital admissions."
862
She added:
"I am aware of the general high quality of the acute medicine practised throughout the hospital."
She continued:
"I was impressed by the integrated social and medical services offered to the thirteen rural parishes that Winsford serves."
I could quote many other parts of the report to make Winsford's case. It was an objective report commissioned by North and East Devon health authority and the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust. Dr. Dodds rightly paid tribute to the dedicated and skilled staff at the hospital.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and I discussed the closures at Winsford and Lynton—which is in my hon. Friend's constituency—with the Secretary of State. Neither my hon. Friend nor I could understand the health authority's logic. The authority said that there would be no redundancies; yet more than 80 per cent. of the costs in the NHS are salaries. The figures given to the Secretary of State—presumably by the health authority or the trust—are flawed at best and misleading at worst. They predict savings on salaries at Winsford of £189,000; yet we were told in the report that there would be no redundancies. Winsford has an 80 per cent. occupancy rate, but nothing in the figures indicates who will bear the cost of treating those patients elsewhere. What do they propose to do with them?
There are many poor and neglected people in the countryside who need and deserve medical care within a reasonable distance of their homes. The roads in the Winsford area are poor and, as I have explained, there is little public transport. The Prime Minister went out of his way at his first Question Time, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), to highlight the inadequacies of public transport—particularly, he said, in rural communities. The closure of their hospital will only add to the disadvantage and neglect suffered by some of the least well-off and most vulnerable people in Britain. For many, Winsford is a lifeline and it is immensely important for that isolated community.
I believe that the health authority and the trust consider that a temporary closure, pending a review, is the easy way to close the hospital permanently. They believe that closing Winsford is a soft option. Winsford costs a total of £395,000 per year to run, according to the health authority's own figures, and that includes all the employees' salaries. That represents one third of 1 per cent. of the annual budget of the North and East Devon health authority—a small sum to provide some 10,000 people in that rural community with the health support that they require and deserve. I hope that the Government will prevail upon the health authority to abandon its plan to close the hospital.
10.22 pm
Mr. Nick Harvey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing the debate to discuss this important issue and on the eloquence with which he has made his case, which is formidable. He is right on three counts.
First, it is urgent that the new Government look at the basis on which health authorities are given their funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon has rightly drawn a comparison with the basis on which

863
local authorities are given their funds. There is a clear cost implication of running health services across large, scattered and rural populations, every bit as much as there is a cost implication of running local authority services in such communities. One needs more staff to cover the same population, as well as more car journeys and more person hours to provide the same level of service.
Any formula seeking to allocate funding to authorities should not take funding away from rural communities and divert it to wealthy urban and suburban communities, but should recognise that—aside from London weighting allowance—we should be putting money into rural communities, not taking it away. It is essential that, as a matter of urgency, there is a review of health authority funding, just as it is absolutely urgent that there should be a review of local authority funding.
The second point to which my hon. Friend referred with great eloquence was the essential nature of those services to the communities which they serve. We have been impressed by the speed and determination with which the new Secretary of State for Health has intervened to prevent the closure of London hospitals, which he did not think was warranted or justified. He has acted decisively. The small communities around Lynton and Lynmouth and those near my hon. Friend's community of Winsford depend on those small cottage hospitals every bit as much as the communities in the large urban areas depend on the more famous London hospitals which the Secretary of State has now prevented from closing. I urge the new health team on the Treasury Bench to recognise the strength of feeling in those communities.
For example, Lynton and Lynmouth are more than 20 miles from the nearest hospital. As many hon. Members who have chosen to visit that picturesque area will know, the casualty service at Lynton is called upon greatly during the summer months when the population is swollen a good deal. I am extremely worried that the closure of Lynton hospital on 15 August will occur eight weeks before the Lynton and Lynmouth season is over. It is also most unfortunate that the closure comes on the anniversary of two events—first, the opening of the hospital 100 years ago and, secondly, the Lynton flood of 1952. It is macabre timing indeed to choose that particular date.
The third point that I wish take up from my hon. Friend's speech is the sheer illogicality of what has been proposed. The health authority is pretending that with the temporary closure of the hospitals for half a year one can make savings worth half the annual running costs. That is absolute nonsense. The staff will be kept on and paid to work elsewhere; the health authority will also pay for treatments to be carried out in other places; and it will pay to keep the buildings heated, lit, insured and maintained because other services will be provided within them. It is therefore nonsense to suggest that savings can be made. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer to the sheer illogicality of the proposal and the haste with which it has been proposed.
In common with my hon. Friend, I urge the new health team to act in the same decisive manner as has been shown towards the glamorous London hospitals and to recognise that, for the communities involved, those two small cottage hospitals are every bit as important.
10.26 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing the debate and the terms in which he addressed the important issues. I also congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey). I know that they met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health recently and expressed to him some of their concerns. I am also aware of correspondence between them and my right hon. Friend subsequent to that meeting.
At the outset, I acknowledge the hon. Members' concern about rural hospitals and the important role they play in their communities and in the wider health service. It is important, however, that all hon. Members should get the position straight.
We have an extremely challenging legacy as a consequence of the situation that the Government and, more importantly, the NHS and local communities now face. In particular, we have a challenging financial legacy. The hon. Members will be well aware that the local health authority is on the front line in terms of meeting some of those challenges. It is fair to say that those problems are more deep-seated than we and, I suspect, the health authorities had anticipated.
We know that the NHS is under considerable pressure this year. As Liberal Democrat Members will appreciate, we have taken decisive action to agree with the health service that the immediate pressing priority, particularly as we approach the winter months, is to respond effectively and efficiently to emergency pressures. We must also secure a more stable financial environment in the future. Hon Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced a substantial level of investment in the NHS for the next financial year.
All health authorities and trusts have been asked by the NHS executive to balance their budgets this year. I freely acknowledge that that will require considerable effort, but there is a straightforward choice facing the House and the national health service: either we take difficult decisions now, or we defer difficult decisions, but difficult decisions there will be. They will not go away, and no amount of wishful thinking and magic-wand waving will make them go away. They are here, and we have to tackle them.
Mr. Burnett: The point I tried to make was that, on a cold, calculating analysis of this year's figures, we do not believe that there will be anything like the savings that the Secretary of State is being misled into believing there could be. We invite him to scrutinise those figures again, because we believe that they are at best misleading, and at worst fallacious.
Mr. Milburn: I am willing to accept the hon. Gentleman's concerns at face value, and I am happy to receive representations from either him or his hon. Friend the Member for North Devon disputing the jointly agreed health authority and trust figures. If he wants to make further representations in the light of information sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I shall gladly examine those representations.

865
As I said, a considerable effort will be required to balance budgets this year. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, North and East Devon health authority faces a difficult financial situation in that it has a recurrent deficit of £2.2 million, which is clearly an untenable and unviable position to take into the next financial year.
The authority is now engaged on a three-phase review of services. The range of proposals announced on 4 June, which includes the temporary closure of Lynton and Winsford hospitals, is designed to save some £6 million by the turn of the century. At the same time, I have been assured that a full range of services to patients will continue to be available locally, although the means of their delivery may inevitably change.
I am aware of concerns about that, and, in particular, of the substantial concerns expressed here this evening and in the community about the way in which decisions regarding the temporary closure have been taken, so, in preparation for this debate, I inquired closely into the background of this rather unusual decision.
Wherever possible, decisions that pre-empt a full-blown health authority consultation on reconfiguration plans should be avoided. I am informed, however, that the health authority felt obliged to close temporarily both Winsford and Lynton hospitals in order to meet its statutory obligation to remain within its financial allocations. Clearly that is a decision and a set of circumstances that everyone involved—including the health authority and the trust—would have preferred to avoid. As I said earlier, the health authority and the trust are at the sharp end of the legacy I described.
The health authority and the trust are not alone—the situation is not unique and very difficult decisions have to be made—but, for the benefit of Opposition Members, I repeat that decisions have to be taken sooner or later. I do not want health authorities, trusts and the national health service to enter the next financial year with the sort of deficit problems with which they entered this financial year.
Opposition Members may smirk, as they are doing, but every pound that health authorities are in debt at the beginning of a financial year is a pound less to invest in front-line patient services. I want public money to go into front-line patient services so that patients in all parts of the country get the services they need and deserve.
Mr. Harvey: The Chancellor in his Budget, and Ministers since, have made much of the additional funding that is going into the NHS next year. Would it not get us out of the position that these two hospitals and many others must find themselves in, if just a small amount of debt were allowed to be carried forward into next year, which we are told will be so much more benignly funded than previous years have been? As my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) said, the sums involved are tiny. If it were allowed to carry just that much forward into next year when the bounty arrives, we need not suffer the pain and anguish of this temporary closure now.
Mr. Milburn: I know that Liberal Democrat Members are always tempted to try to defer decisions, but the present Government believe in taking decisions—that is what government is all about.
866
I return to the substantive issue that the hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon and for North Devon addressed. Decisions on the long-term future of services in Winsford and Lynton will be taken by the health authority in consultation with the local community later this financial year, following completion of a review of the health and social care needs. I should like to reassure both hon. Members that any proposals for permanent service changes will be subject to full public consultation.
I give both hon. Members a further assurance: that I will ask the south-west regional office of the national health service executive to monitor that consultation exercise very carefully indeed, and especially to ensure that it embraces and engages with all of the key stakeholders in the community, to ensure that the right decision is ultimately reached.
That is important because small cottage hospitals inspire a great deal of affection and attachment in the community. As hon. Members are aware, traditionally the role of the rural cottage hospital has been to provide basic cost-effective care, generally for an elderly population, in an environment that is close to their homes and where there is easy access for relatives and friends to visit.
However, as I am sure all hon. Members are aware, the pattern of health service demand has altered radically during the past few years. Change is endemic in the national health service, and change will continue. I believe that, overwhelmingly, most changes in the NHS will be positive changes that will benefit patients.
That is not to say that local community hospitals closely linked to primary care services will not have an important role to play in future; they will. However, decisions must be taken in the context of the resources available to the local health service.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon made some important points about the resource allocation system. As he knows, health authorities are responsible for the expenditure of significant amounts of public money. I do not know whether I am one of the dead or the insane, being in the Chamber at this time of night, but the national formula for the allocation of resources to health authorities distributes resources on the basis of the relative needs of local populations, and takes account of several key factors. Those include the age structure of the local population, the additional health needs of that population and the unavoidable local variations in cost that occur in the delivery of local health services.
I can tell the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon—and in so doing respond to the concerns and promptings of the hon. Member for North Devon—that the weighted capitation formula is being kept under review, and we shall continue to look at the way in which resources are distributed throughout secondary and primary care, to ensure that their allocation fully reflects the needs of local people and operates as fairly as possible.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon will be interested to know that work has been commissioned to investigate the possible extra costs associated with the provision of accident and emergency and ambulance

867
services in rural areas. A report is expected in the autumn, and the results will be carefully considered. I hope that that helps to provide some reassurance to hon. Members who represent important rural communities.
The review of how resources are allocated notwithstanding, priorities in the NHS have to be established. Whereas clinicians will always have the lead role in deciding the care and treatment of patients, it is health authorities that must decide on the right investments for differing population groups in different areas. In doing so, they will seek and pay heed to any advice that clinicians and other stakeholders can give.
Health authorities assess the health care needs of their resident populations, draw up strategies and purchasing plans in collaboration with local people and other interested organisations, and secure a range of primary, acute and community health services which will best satisfy those needs.
The challenge facing health authorities in Devon is how best to get the right mixture: how to provide as comprehensive a range of services as possible for their local populations within the resources at their disposal. I hope that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon will agree with me that rural hospitals are an important
868
element in the NHS, but that they are also just one element of a comprehensive range of services available throughout the country.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will further agree that the staff of small hospitals and other hospitals in rural areas, in collaboration with family doctors, community and district nurses, and the larger, more specialised hospitals, together provide and integrated service which offers the community a continuing excellent standard of care.
Unfortunately, when closure plans are in operation, attention inevitably centres on the many difficult decisions that the NHS is having to take. It is always important, therefore, to remind ourselves that most patients and staff take the view that the NHS is something of which to be proud. It is the envy of the world; I want to make sure that it continues to be the envy of the world. To that end, NHS care must be available on the basis of clinical need to all patients who need it. Above all, every part of the country must have access to one standard of NHS services of the highest possible achievable quality.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10191]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested for reviews which have already been announced is set out in the table.

  Review

  (a) Purpose

  (b) expected completion date

  Immigration detention policy, Official Report, 23 June, column 358.

  Internal review of all aspects of immigration detention policy

  Autumn 1997

  Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, Official Report, 3 July, column 236.

  Interdepartmental review to look at further ways of assisting vulnerable witnesses—such as victims of rape and of domestic violence—and providing witnesses with greater protection from intimidation.

  Aims to report to Ministers by end 1997

  Prison and Probation Services, Official Report. 16 July, columns 172–73.

  To look at ways in which the better integration of the two services could improve their performance and effectiveness. The review will include looking at the structure and organisation of the Probation Service, to complement the review of the Prison Service which is already under way.

  Initial report by end 1997

  In addition, my Department will be playing a full part in the Government's comprehensive spending review, details of which will be announced shortly.

  Referendums
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria the Government use to determine whether constitutional changes should be submitted to a referendum. [10206]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Legislation is currently before Parliament to enable referendums to be held on the Government's proposals for devolution to Scotland and Wales.

  We have also indicated that referendums will be held on the proposed strategic authority for London, on the voting system for elections to the House of Commons and in the regions on the questions of whether regional government should be established.
  482
  Our manifesto made it clear that Britain would not join a single currency unless the people had said yes in a referendum.

  Other referendums may also be held when the Government and Parliament consider it appropriate.

  Abbas Radiom Case
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedural changes in respect of appeals concerning right of abode he plans following the European Court ruling in the Abbas Radiom case; and if he will make a statement. [10212]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill, which is currently before Parliament, would give a right of appeal to European Economic Area nationals in the small number of cases where the Secretary of State has decided that their exclusion, removal or departure from the United Kingdom would be conducive to the public good. There is currently no right of appeal in such cases.

  Dogs (Experimentation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 175, how many of the project licences issued under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to experiment on non-purpose-bred dogs in 1995 covered procedures classified as being of (a) mild, (b) moderate and (c) substantial severity; at what kind of establishments these procedures were carried out; what was the nature of the research; and if these dogs were obtained directly from individual owners who had kept them as pets. [9005]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The 66 non-purpose-bred dogs which were acquired from non-designated sources in the United Kingdom were used under four different project licences; three were of mild severity and one of moderate. In all cases, the work was carried out in veterinary schools.

  A variety of breeds was used for studies relevant to the specific breed or type of dog involved. Two of the projects involved research into reproductive hormone levels in dogs. The third was a study of inherited diseases in dogs and the last was an animal welfare study to improve post-operative care of dogs undergoing clinical veterinary surgery.

  The majority of procedures involved taking blood samples for subsequent analysis. The remainder involved administration of analgesia. In all cases, the owner's consent to use the dogs was obtained. The dogs were later certified as fit to be discharged from the controls of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and were returned to their owners.

  Violent Offences
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the main types of offences which fall into the category of violent offences. [9073]

  Mr. Michael
  Violent crime comprises the offences groups of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery. A breakdown of the offence classifications within each offence group is given in the table.
  483

  Violence against the person

  Homicide—murder, manslaughter and infanticide

  Attempted murder

  Threat or conspiracy to murder

  Child destruction

  Causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs

  Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

  Wounding or other act endangering life

  Endangering railway passenger

  Endangering life at sea

  Other wounding

  Abandoning a child under the age of two years

  Child abduction

  Procuring illegal abortion

  Concealment of birth.

  Sexual offences

  Buggery

  Indecent assault on a male

  Indecency between males

  Rape of a female

  Rape of a male

  Indecent assault on a female

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16

  Incest

  Procuration

  Abduction

  Bigamy

  Gross indecency with a child.

  Robbery

  Robbery.

  Private Sector Housing (Neighbours)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce measures to protect residents in the private housing sector from intimidation, harassment and nuisance from their neighbours. [9172]

  Mr. Michael
  We intend to introduce community safety orders in the Crime and Disorder Bill. Under our proposals, courts will be given the power to grant such orders on the application of a local authority or the police. The order will apply to a named individual or individuals and would require that person or persons to desist from specified anti-social behaviour. A breach of the order will be a criminal offence which would carry stiff penalties—including the possibility of imprisonment. An order will be able to protect the residents of private houses from anti-social behaviour by their neighbours in the same way that it will protect other people.

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often since 1992 his Department has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9502]
  484
  Mr. Straw
  Recruitment advertisements for assistant immigration officers include a minimum age limit of 18 and advertisements for Prison Officers include minimum and maximum age limits of 20 and 50 respectively. In addition, advertisements for psychological assistants in the Prison Service and for candidates for the prison officer accelerated promotion scheme included age restrictions until 1995.

  Apart from these exceptions, it is not Home Office policy for employment advertisements to include age restrictions. It is possible that a small number of individual advertisements since 1992 may have contained age restrictions, but this could be checked only at disproportionate cost.

  Road Rage
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists were convicted of offences associated with road rage in the greater London area during the last 12 months. [9294]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not available. "Road Rage" is not an offence covered by separate statute and motorists involved in criminal behaviour are likely to be charged with an offence appropriate to the circumstances in each case. None of these can be separately identified, as the statistics do not include details of the circumstances.

  Immigrants (Employment Restrictions)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times employers have been investigated under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996; in how many cases employers have been prosecuted under this act; and what level of fines were imposed in these cases. [9490]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The approach of the Immigration Service towards section 8 of the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act is that if, during the course of normal operational activity, an employer is found to have breached section 8 they will be advised of its provisions and issued with a warning letter. The warning letter informs them that if they continue to offend consideration will be given to prosecution. There is no central record of the number of warning letters issued and there have been no prosecutions under section 8 to date.

  Immigration (Former Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy in respect of those who entered the United Kingdom under the 1,000 quota rule from the former Yugoslavia; and if he will allow them to regularise their status in the United Kingdom. [9852]

  Mr. Mike O' Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on 16 July,Official Report, columns 176–78.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Police Federation about representation of special constables following the disbandment of NASCO. [9869]
  485
  Mr. Michael
  I have not yet discussed the special constabulary with the Police Federation. I am aware that the working group on the special constabulary could not find a satisfactory answer to the question of representation and suggested that the Home Office meet the relevant bodies and representatives of the special constabulary to explore whether some form of formal representation for specials would be possible. This will be included in our work following the working group's report. I have an open mind on the issue and will seek the views of the Police Federation and other groups in due course.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the percentage of special constables who have left the force in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [9844]

  Mr. Michael
  The in-post and wastage figures for special constables over the past five years are as follows:

  Year ending

  In-post

  Resignations

  Percentage

  31 December 1992

  19,243

  3,982

  20.7

  31 December 1993

  20,573

  4,224

  20.5

  31 March 1995

  20,026

  4,474

  22.3

  31 March 1996

  19,736

  4,488

  22.7

  31 March 19971

  19,836

  4,169

  21.0

  1 The figures for 1996–97 are provisional.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages of providing special constables with a retainer as an incentive to remain on the force. [9846]

  Mr. Michael
  A pilot scheme, whereby special constables could qualify for a bounty payment of £200 on completion of 125 hours in a six-month period, was conducted in Dorset between 1991 and 1993. The results were inconclusive. While the number of hours performed by the specials increased slightly, the scheme had no effect on recruitment or retention. There is therefore no evidence to confirm that a retainer would have a marked effect on the wastage rate.

  Nevertheless, we will be considering the question of a bounty payment following the report of the working group on the special constabulary. The working group was against such a payment, but the Audit Commission, in its "Streetwise" report of last year, was in favour of retainers. These views will be taken into account and the police staff and local authority associations consulted before decisions are made.

  Police forces are tackling the wastage rate in other ways with the support of the working group's recommendations and over £9 million of Government grant has been

  Grades

  Total number of Staff in Post

  (a) Number

  (a) Percentage

  (b) Number

  (b) Percentage

  2–5

  61

  1

  Approximately 2

  Nil

  —

  6–12

  362

  4

  1

  Less than 1

  12 and Below

  538

  6

  1

  13

  2

  Parliamentary Works Directorate Craft Grades

  83

  2

  2

  3

  4

  Refreshment Department Catering Grades

  266

  10

  4

  20

  8

  Grades have been grouped to protect condidentiality.
  486
  provided during the past two years to improve the training, equipment, and terms and conditions of specials. This is already having an effect as the number of specials leaving the service in 1996–97 is down by 319 on the previous year.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to update the police national computer directly from courts. [9840]

  Mr. Michael
  The technical options by which court results could be entered directly onto the police national computer are being investigated by the committee for the co-ordination of the criminal justice system, under the direction of the cross-departmental trials issues group. It is too early yet to arrive at any conclusions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how often since 1992 the Commission has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9562]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  It is not the policy of the House of Commons to include age restrictions on eligibility in employment advertisements. The Establishments Office of the House, which is responsible for advising Departments on the content of employment advertisements, is not aware of any instance of age restrictions appearing in an advertisement since 1992.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many and what percentage of employees in the House of Commons are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin, broken down by grade. [9561]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The ethnic monitoring of staff employed by the Commission has been in place since 1988. This is on a voluntary basis and not all staff choose to respond to the ethnic monitoring questionnaire. The numbers and approximate percentages, by grade, of employees of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin are:

  Telephone Number
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire representing the House of Commons Commission if the Commission will consider introducing an 0345 phone number for the House. [9647]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  There are no plans currently to do so, since it would commit the House to bearing a large part of the costs of any call received on such a number.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he is having with London borough councils in respect of new proposals to build houses; and if he will make a statement. [9097]

  Mr Raynsford
  The Government's capital receipts Initiative will make additional resources available to local authorities to help meet housing need. In some London boroughs this might entail support for the building of new houses in partnership with registered social landlords. The Government are currently consulting on its proposals and we look forward to receiving local authorities comments.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what support his Department has given to the development and commercialisation of the technology described in FP50 over the last 10 years. [8984]

  Angela Eagle
  Higher efficiency motors have been available for a number of years and my Department recommended their use. However, sales were very low because they were about 25 per cent. more expensive than an equivalent standard motor.

  To overcome this cost barrier my Department supported, through the energy efficiency best practice programme, a club research project that lead to the development of a higher efficiency motor that did not carry a premium price. The project, managed by motor manufacturer Brook Hansen, cost £12 million and the Government's contribution was £4 million. More recently, further support has been provided to disseminate the results of the project via a range of publications and promotional events. We are also supporting the European Commission's work to promote the use of higher efficiency motors.

  The new motors are currently saving industry around £2 million per year in reduced electricity costs. It is estimated that these savings will eventually reach about £120 million per year, when there is a much greater range of models available and other manufacturers catch up. In terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, savings of £120 million wold equate to a reduction of some 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

  Air Quality (Brent Cross)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the present air quality standards in the vicinity of Brent Cross shopping centre, with reference to(a) carbon monoxide, (b) nitrogen oxide, (c) nitrogen dioxide and (d) particulate material below 10 microns; what are the pertinent European limits for (a) to (d); and if he will make a statement. [9185]

  Angela Eagle
  As part of its national air quality monitoring programme, my Department, in collaboration with local authorities, monitors air pollutants using automatic and non automatic methods across London. The two automatic monitoring stations closest to the Brent Cross shopping centre are (i) an urban background station in the Kingsbury area of the London boroughs of Brent and (ii) a roadside station situated next to the A41 Great North Way at Swiss Cottage, in the London borough of Camden. The results of this monitoring for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulate material below 10 microns, measured during 1996, are presented in the Table below.

  Site

  Carbon monoxide—max 8 hour running mean

  Nitrogen oxide—98th percentile of hourly means

  Nitrogen oxide—98th percentile of hourly means

  Particles (PM10) max 24 hour average

  Brent

  8.00 ppm

  191 ppb

  55 ppb

  61 ug/m3

  Camden

  Not measured

  397 ppb

  57 ppb

  77 ug/m3

  My Department also monitors nitrogen dioxide using non-automatic methods, in collaboration with local authorities, in its national diffusion tube survey. The results from the sites nearest to the shopping centre, for 1995, are given in the table.

  London Borough

  Location

  Site type

  Annual mean(ppb)

  Barnet

  158 Burnet Oak Broadway, Edgware

  Kerbside

  21

  Barnet

  32 Sanders Lane, Mill Hill

  Background

  18

  Barnet

  158 Burnt Oak Broadway, Edgware

  Intermediate

  17

  Barnet

  42 Lylton Road, New Barnet

  Background

  17

  Brent

  Abbydale Road, Alperton, Wembley

  Kerbside

  29

  Brent

  Stanley Avenue, Wembley

  Background

  20

  Brent

  66 Lodore Gardens, Kingsbury

  Background

  20

  Brent

  349–357 High Road, Wembley

  Intermediate

  21

  Camden

  Camden Town Hall, Judd Street

  Kerbside

  33

  Camden

  Church Hall, Wakefield Street

  Background

  19

  Camden

  St. Andrew's United Reform Church, Finchley Road

  Intermediate

  23

  Camden

  9–11 Froghal Way

  Background

  18

  489
  European Community Directive 85/203/EEC sets a limit value for nitrogen dioxide of 104.6 ppb as a 98th percentile of hourly means. There are currently no European limits for nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide or particulate material below 10 microns.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions(a) have taken place and (b) are planned between his Department and the Health and Safety Executive on the use and development of safe alternatives to asbestos. [9190]

  Angela Eagle
  As my hon. Friend is aware from the Adjournment debate on 18 June, I have asked the Health and Safety Commission to advise me urgently on a mechanism for introducing a domestic ban on the import, supply and use of asbestos. Safe and effective alternative non-asbestos products are available for some, but possibly not all, uses. The Health and Safety Executive is currently researching the situation with other Government Departments and industry. The commission is consulting widely before giving its formal advice.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the green Ministers appointed to date in other Government Departments; when he intends green Ministers to have been appointed in all departments; and if he will make a statement. [9494]

  Angela Eagle
  The committee of green Ministers is chaired by his right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. Other members of the committee have been appointed as follows:

  Department

  Minister

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Jeff Rooker MP

  Chancellor's Departments

  Dawn Primarolo MP

  Culture, Media and Sport

  Mark Fisher MP

  Defence

  John Spellar MP

  Education and Employment

  Dr. Kim Howells MP

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Glenda Jackson MP

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Derek Fatchett MP

  Health

  Tessa Jowell MP

  Home Office

  Mike O'Brien MP

  International Development

  George Foulkes MP

  Law Officers

  The Lord Falconer QC

  Lord Chancellor's

  Geoff Hoon MP

  Northern Ireland Office

  The Lord Dubs

  Public Service and Science

  Peter Kilfoyle MP

  Scottish Office

  The Lord Sewel CBE

  Social Security

  Keith Bradley MP

  Trade and Industry

  John Battle MP

  Welsh Office

  Win Griffiths MP

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what percentage of civil servants in each of the grades 1 to 5 in his Department are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9564]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no civil servants employed in my Department in the grades 1 to 5 who are of(a) Asian origin or (b) Afro-Caribbean origin.

  Mobile Homes and Caravan Parks
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to encourage local planning authorities to allow the provision of residential wardens' accommodation at mobile home and caravan parks. [9171]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Development proposals for on-site residential accommodation for wardens are considered within the framework of Government policy as set out in planning policy guidance notes. PPG7 on "The Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development" restricts the provision of new dwellings in the open countryside in order to protect rural landscapes and the character of the countryside. There is scope for local planning authorities to grant permission for isolated dwellings in the countryside in exceptional circumstances, for example where these are essential for agricultural or forestry workers. The Government have not been persuaded that exceptions should be made to existing policy other than in certain exceptional cases provided for in existing guidance PPG7.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10195]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department is undertaking a fundamental review of transport policy whose purpose is to lead a White Paper on an integrated transport policy. We anticipate the White Paper will be published next spring. A review of compulsory competitive tendering regulations and guidance, which seeks to identify changes which will improve the existing regime pending its replacement by a duty of best value, is due to be completed shortly.

  Housing Development, Poulton Le Fylde
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review his decision in respect of the housing development at Briarfield Nurseries, Blackpool old road, Poulton Le Fylde, Lancashire. [10102]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Secretary of State has no plans to do so.

  Chemical Hazards
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the nature of the proposed directive on the protection of employees from chemical risks; what procedure it will be subject to; and if he will make a statement. [10201]

  Angela Eagle
  The proposed directive on chemical agents would establish minimum standards for the control of hazardous chemicals in the workplace. It is based on article 118A and is subject to the co-operation procedure. It will be a directive under the framework directive 89/391/EEC.
  491
  The UK has secured all its objectives on the proposal which reached political agreement at the Social Affairs Council on 27 June. It is likely to reach common position formally in September 1997 and then be subject to a second reading by the European Parliament towards the end of 1997.

  The UK already has comprehensive regulations covering the health effects of chemicals—principally the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994—which is one of the most advanced regimes in Europe. The UK has therefore supported this proposal in principle, believing that it would fill an important gap in EU legislation and raise standards elsewhere in Europe.

  Definitive Maps and Statements
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what amendments he proposes to make to the guidance on the interpretation of definitive statements in circular 2/93. [10383]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have revised the guidance in circular 2/93 which deals with the interpretation of information recorded on statements which accompany definitive maps. We have written today to the local government associations and others with an interest to advise them that paragraph 31 of the circular has been replaced with the following."Information recorded in the definitive statement about position or width or as limitations or conditions affecting a public right of way is conclusive evidence of position, width, limitations or conditions. Information may be recorded in the definitive statement which, in practice, restricts the use of the way by those whose rights to use it are recorded on the definitive map. Where such information is not about position or width, or is not recorded as a limitation or condition, highway authorities should examine the evidence in each case in order to resolve the inconsistencies."

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he proposes to issue on definitive maps and statements in the light of recent High Court judgments. [10384]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have been looking at the implications of a recent High Court judgment for the evidence that is required to prove that vehicular rights of way have been established through regular use. We have concluded that vehicular rights cannot be claimed through 20 years' use, under section 31 of the Highways Act 1980, if access to the route in question was prohibited by the Road Traffic Acts during any of those 20 years. The fact that people have driven along a footpath or bridleway does not mean that it has ceased to be a footpath or bridleway. Vehicle users will not be able to claim new rights of way on the basis of past use unless the landowner has dedicated a way for their use.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of whether the current Civil Aviation Authority minimum seat pitch on aircraft is sufficient to allow for evacuation in an emergency; if he will review the CAA minimum seat pitch; and if he will make a statement;[8229]
  492
  (2) what checks are made to ensure that airlines comply with the Civil Aviation Authority minimum seat pitch. [8228]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority has set minimum requirements relating to the spacing of passenger seats for aircraft on the UK register as it is one of a number of factors which can have an effect on the evacuation of an aircraft in an emergency. These standards were the results of a thorough assessment by the CAA. In addition to other tests, demonstration evacuations were carried out on two aircraft types before the standard was adopted.

  Compliance with these standards on individual aircraft is initially checked by the CAA when it approves the aircraft's passenger cabin layout. While the operator of an aircraft is responsible for ensuring that the passenger cabin layout continues to meet the required standards, this will be the subject of checks as part of the CAA's on-going aircraft monitoring process.

  I have no evidence to suggest that a review of these standards is necessary.

  Shadow Tolling
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 131, (1) whether the results of the development work on refining the shadow toll payment mechanism so that it is less dependent on traffic-related payments will cover those schemes contained in the accelerated review; [9957]

  (2) in what circumstances shadow tolling of roads offers value for money; [9958]

  (3) when he expects to be able to make an announcement on the refinements to shadow toll payment mechanisms to make them less dependent on traffic-related payments. [9959]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A consideration in selecting design, build, finance and operate projects for competition is potential commercial viability. Whether projects offer value for money depends entirely upon the bids submitted for individual projects. The development work on payment mechanisms was begun initially for possible application to the A40 west London approach and A13 Thames gateway DBFO projects. If this refinement of remuneration arrangements is successful it could be applied elsewhere, and we would announce its introduction when we are able to apply it to a particular project.

  Coach Safety
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he will make to other EU countries to legislate to require all coaches carrying children to have seat-belts fitted. [9795]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: Other EU member states are fully aware of the UK's keenness to have seat belts fitted to all coaches, and its national requirement for seat belts to be fitted in coaches used to carry children, but the decision to introduce a similar national requirement must remain one for the Governments of the individual EU member states.

  493
  However, we expect that in the future more foreign coaches will have seat belts, especially from 1 October 1999 when any member state can impose a general requirement for all coaches being registered to have seat belts fitted.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to prevent foreign coach operators carrying children as passengers in the United Kingdom without having seat belts fitted in their coaches. [9792]

  Ms Jackson
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: It is a long standing principle that certain of the UK's national vehicle regulations do not apply to vehicles registered abroad which are temporarily visiting this country. Similar arrangements apply when British vehicles travel to other EU countries. We do not require visiting foreign coaches to comply with our domestic regulations by fitting seat belts for children, and I do not believe it would be realistic to alter this. However, we expect that more foreign coaches will be fitted with seat belts in future as an amended seat belt directive starts to take effect that will allow member states to require the fitting of seat belts to all new coaches.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to prevent children being carried in European Union countries on coaches that do not have seat belts fitted. [9794]

  Ms Jackson
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: When organised trips to European Union countries start in Britain, newer British coaches must have seat belts available for children. This requirement will extend to older coaches in February next year. While such vehicles will often continue to be used for the journey outside Britain, we do not have any jurisdiction over the domestic transport arrangements for children within other countries if they use a local vehicle. However, we would encourage those arranging trips for British children abroad always to use coaches fitted with seat belts.

  Thamesmead Rail Link
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the proposal for a rail link to Thamesmead. [10103]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The option of constructing a southerly extension to the docklands light railway to Thamesmead from Gallions Reach is being assessed as a potential public transport component of the Thames gateway bridge, one of the potential new river crossings for east London currently being appraised by my Department.

  Seahorse and Exodus Incident
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the marine accident investigation branch expects to submit its report on the incident between the flagged vessel Seahorse and the Irish vessel Exodus in March. [10208]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The marine accident investigation branch has carried out a joint investigation with the Irish Department of the Marine into this tragic 494
  accident. As this investigation was not an inspector's inquiry the report will not be published through the Stationery Office, but is expected to be available to the Marine Safety Agency and involved parties by the end of September.

  A1
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the feasibility schemes put up to the Highways Agency by Northumberland county council in respect of the route of the Al in Northumberland; when these schemes were received; and which ones he proposes to implement; [9497]

  (2) if he will list the article 14 highway directives issued in respect of the A1 from the new Tyne crossing to the Gorforth Park iterchange; and if those directions are still in force; [9496]

  (3) for what purpose he has issued article 14 directives in respect of the A1 between the new Tyne crossing and the Gorforth Park interchange. [9515]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 22 July 1997:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the A1 North of Newcastle.
  You asked for a list of the feasibility schemes which Northumberland County Council have put to the Highways Agency in respect of the route of the A1 in Northumberland.
  The County Council submitted a report on the feasibility of dualling sections of the A1 at the end of March 1997. The recommendations are being studied, but it would be inappropriate to list them at this stage because it could cause unnecessary Blight on long sections of the A1. A decision on the schemes may of course also be affected by the reviews announced recently by the Minister.
  You also asked for a list of all Article 14 Highway Directions issued in respect of the A1 from the new Tyne Crossing to the Gosforth Park Interchange and if those Directions are still in force.
  The Agency has issued two such Directions with respect to planning applications for Newburn Haugh and Newcastle Airport. The purpose for these is:

  Newburn Haugh
  The Agency has directed conditions on an application to cover improvements needed to the A1 southbound of slip road and the Scotswood Road junction as well as improvements to Scotswood Road (local highway). Planning permission was granted on 8 November 1996.

  Newcastle Airport Terminal Extension
  The Agency has directed conditions to cover improvements needed to the A696 and A696/A1 junction to facilitate the development. The development now has planning permission.

  Older Drivers
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will work with the motor industry to develop industry best practice for secondary protection against accidents for older drivers. [9301]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Manufacturers are continuing to improve the overall secondary safety of cars for all occupants. Longer-term departmental research with
  495
  industry participation includes the possibility of tailoring car secondary safety to the physical characteristics of individual occupants.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the sight distance standards for non-signalised junction designs to take account of the perception-reaction characteristics of older drivers. [9295]

  Ms Jackson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 22 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent question concerning a possible review of the sight distance standards for non-signalised junction designs to take account of the perception-reaction characteristics of older drivers.
  The standards issued by the Highways Agency for non-signalled cross-road junctions were reviewed and updated in 1995 and for roundabouts in 1993. UK standards are similar in this respect to most European standards. The sight distance standards in the documents take account of a range of perception-reaction characteristics which includes that of older drivers.
  Perception-reaction characteristics comprise the time taken to see a sign, feature or hazard, decide what action is necessary, and take action: our standards assume two seconds perception-reaction time. Experience and judgement are important to perceiving and avoiding any potential hazard, though perception-reaction processes slow with advancing age, experience and judgement improve.
  In 1995 the Highways Agency reviewed whether road design standards should be amended to allow for demographic changes. Our study concluded that at present sight distance standards are appropriate for drivers with the range of perception-reaction characteristics prevalent in the driving population.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of Devon county council's roadfit scheme. [9299]

  Ms Jackson
  The Department has not made any formal assessment of the Devon county council's roadfit scheme, but is taking a close interest in this and similar schemes directed at older drivers.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department takes to make drivers aware of declining sensory and cognitive abilities as they get older. [9300]

  Ms Jackson
  The present driver licensing system recognises that aging may affect driving ability, although this varies from person to person. Drivers must renew their licences at 70 years of age, at which point they are required to make a declaration about their health. A licence is then issued for up to three years only, subject to a further health declaration at each renewal.

  The Department's leaflet, "Advice to Older Drivers", provides advice on driving skills, legal requirements and guidance on when to consider giving up driving. I will arrange for copies to be deposited in the House Libraries.

  The Department has commissioned research to study the effects of aging on cognitive ability and to develop appropriate measures for elderly drivers in order to help them maintain their mobility safely.
  496
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to work with other European countries towards developing a common approach to helping older drivers. [9302]

  Ms Jackson
  There are no current initiatives at European level to develop a common approach towards older drivers.

  The report on the safety of older car drivers in the European Union recently published by the European Road Safety Federation is a useful contribution to the international understanding of this issue.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will investigate the use of directional arrows at traffic signals with the objective of simplifying decision making for older drivers. [9296]

  Ms Jackson
  Work is being done to increase the conspicuity of traffic signals, including those with directional arrows, particularly in adverse viewing conditions. Some trials are under way to assess improvements that can be made to directional arrow signalling at more complicated junctions. Such improvements would help all drivers.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidelines his Department issues to(a) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, (b) police authorities, (c) doctors and (d) optometrists in respect of advice to older drivers who are considering giving up driving. [9298]

  Ms Jackson
  Guidance on giving advice to older drivers, including advice on preparing to give up driving when this becomes necessary is included within the publication "Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive", which is published by the medical commission on accident prevention and endorsed by the Secretary of State's honorary medical advisory panels on driving. This publication is distributed widely to medical practitioners, who may also consult doctors at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by means of a dedicated telephone line.

  The Department's chief medical adviser regularly meets the Association of Optometrists and issues associated with all aspects of driving are regularly discussed with the police.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements exist for the cleaning and maintenance of road signs on roads for which the Highways Agency is responsible; and if he will review these arrangements to take account of older road users. [9297]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 22 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what arrangements exist for the cleaning and maintenance of road signs on roads for which the Highways Agency is responsible; and if he will review these requirements to take account of older road users.

  497
  The Highways Agency is responsible for the management and maintenance of the Trunk Road Network and signs on these roads are cleaned and maintained by Term Contractors under the direction of our Managing Agents. In some areas Local Authorities are our Managing Agents and in others the service is provided by Consulting Engineers. Our requirements for cleaning and inspecting signs are detailed in Volume 8 of our Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and in our Routine Maintenance Management System. In summary they are:-
  Safety Patrols and Inspections are undertaken at frequent intervals and defects which constitute an immediate danger to the public are rectified within 24 hours.
  Inspections to detect failure of lamps and their control mechanism are made at monthly intervals.
  Annual inspections are undertaken to check if foliage is obscuring signs.
  Every two years the condition of all signs is checked.
  Signs are cleaned on an "as required" basis but not less frequently than every three years. The need varies greatly between different locations.
  These requirements for cleaning and inspecting signs are being reviewed taking account of the needs of older road users. At this stage it is not possible to say when this review will be completed or whether the standards I have described will be amended.

  Clean Engine Technology
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made by United Kingdom motor manufacturers in the development of clean engine technology. [9317]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Although development of clean engine and after-treatment technologies is undertaken on an increasingly globalised basis, work done in this area in the UK continues to place its manufacturers among world leaders.

  The speed of development has been largely determined by the increasingly stringent emissions standards which have been set in recent years. Emissions standards recently agreed at the EU Environment Council for passenger cars, for 2000 and 2005, together with proposals in the pipeline for other vehicles, will provide a further stimulus to technological development in this area. Meanwhile, the Government's decision to provide fiscal incentives for heavy vehicles meeting more stringent emissions standards should also stimulate development of new technologies.

  Port of London Authority
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many maritime incidents were recorded by the Port of London Authority in each of the last five years. [9807]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department does not collect statistics on maritime incidents recorded by individual port authorities. I understand that the Port of London Authority has written to my hon. Friend offering an opportunity to visit it and discuss these matters.

  Epping-Ongar Line
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure 498
  that gains from property development undertaken by a commercial operator of the Epping to Ongar line are subject to clawback by London Underground Ltd. [9862]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Before making a decision on London Underground's proposed sale of the Epping to Ongar line, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that appropriate safeguards are in place concerning the future potential for this land.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what form he proposes to receive the dividends for Her Majesty's Government's residual shareholding in Railtrack. [9850]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government intend to take cash dividends for their residual shareholding in Railtrack; these will be paid into the Exchequer—consolidated fund extra receipts.

  Roads Review
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which representative bodies he intends to consult in July in respect of his roads review. [9866]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety held a series of meetings during July on the arrangements for the forthcoming review with representatives of environmental groups; road user and construction groups; local government; statutory bodies; and industry. The bodies represented at these meetings were as follows:

  Alarm UK

  Automobile Association

  British Road Federation

  Confederation of British Industry

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Countryside Commission

  English Heritage

  English Nature

  Freight Transport Association

  Friends of the Earth

  Local Government Association

  Quarry Products Association

  Road Haulage Association

  Royal Automobile Club

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Transport 2000.

  We shall issue a public consultation document shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of funds which have been recovered by the BCCI liquidators since 1992; and what amount of funds is now held by them. [9998]
  499
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  This information is contained in the report of the joint liquidators to the Secretary of State made up to 15 January 1997 copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House and a copy of which was sent to my hon. Friend on 30 May 1997.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will ask the liquidators to report progress to her Department in respect of their attempts to recover BCCI assets held by the United States Department of Justice; what sums are being claimed; and if she will investigate the delay in recovering those assets. [9999]

  Mr. Griffiths
  The joint liquidators reported on their efforts to recover BCCI assets held in the United States of America in their report to the Secretary of State pursuant to regulation 14 of the Insolvency Regulations 1994 for the period 16 January 1996 to 15 January 1997. Copies of this report have been placed in the Libraries of the House and a copy was sent to my hon. Friend on 30 May 1997.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she last met the liquidators of BCCI.
  [10002]

  Mr. Griffiths
  My officials last met the liquidators of BCCI on 2 July 1997.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the worldwide assets of the BCCI companies, excluding those countries which have ring-fenced their assets; what proportion of the assets is available for distribution to creditors; what factors have led to the remaining assets being unavailable for distribution; what is the aggregate amount for which proofs of debt have been received worldwide, excluding duplicate proofs of debt and proof of debts submitted in countries which have ring-fenced; and what proportion of the amount is disputed. [10003]

  Mr. Griffiths
  These are matters for the liquidators. My Department does not hold this information.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the total worldwide liabilities of the BCCI companies, excluding those countries which have ring-fenced their assets. [1005]

  Mr. Griffiths
  My Department does not have this information.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will investigate the factors underlying the non-distribution of assets retained by the BCCI liquidators since 1992. [9997]

  Mr. Griffiths
  No, but if my hon. Friend will indicate the assets to which he is referring I will cause further inquiries to be made.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the current estimates of the percentage amounts of dividend payments for BCCI creditors; what is the current estimate of the aggregate total of dividends to BCCI creditors which will be paid; and by when they are expected to have been paid. [10001]

  Mr. Griffiths
  These are matters for the liquidators, but I understand that they hope to pay a substantial further dividend as soon as possible.
  500
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of trade if she will set up an inquiry into the conduct of the liquidation of BCCI and the fees charged by the liquidators prior to the payment of the first dividend. [9996]

  Mr. Griffiths
  No. The conduct of the liquidation of BCCI is a matter for the liquidators, for the liquidation committee and for the court. The remuneration payable to the liquidators is a matter for the liquidation committee, the creditors generally or the court.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will investigate the compliance of demand notices issued to former employees by the English liquidators of BCCI with section 84(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [9892]

  Mr. Griffiths
  I am advised that section 84(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is unlikely to apply to the transactions in question, although other provisions of the Act may, if my hon. Friend has any concerns regarding them would he please send details to the Director General of Fair Trading, who enforces the Consumer Credit Act.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the global costs of the BCCI liquidation to date. [10006]

  Mr. Griffiths
  None.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regulations govern the(a) reporting and (b) publication of liquidators' fees and expenses. [1000]

  Mr. Griffiths
  Regulation 14 of the Insolvency Regulations 1994 provides that liquidators shall send in an account of their receipts and payments if required by the Secretary of State at any time. In the case of BCCI the liquidators have made copies of their report available to all creditors and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the global costs of Deloitte Touche's fees in respect of the BCCI liquidation to date. [1004]

  Mr. Griffiths
  This information is not held by my Department. Information on the total of realisations, remuneration, costs and other expenses of the UK liquidation is given in the joint liquidators' report to the Secretary of State made up to 15 January 1997, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House and a copy of which was sent to the hon. Member on 30 May 1997.

  European Structural Funds
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the role of social partners in the implementation of European structural funds in the United Kingdom. [10380]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government see the advantages of a wider social partnership, bringing employers' and trade union representatives into local European structural funds partnerships. We will expect the social partners to make a real contribution to the programmes, as existing partners do. The precise way in which they participate will be for each monitoring committee to determine locally.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission (Property Inquiry)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the experience that the members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's committee investigating Scottish Residential Estate Agency Services have in respect of(a) Scots law and (b) the Scottish property market. [9953]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The role of the members of an inquiry group investigating a reference made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is to bring to that investigation a mixture of expertise in legal, economic, industrial, financial and other relevant disciplines. It has not been their function to have detailed expertise and knowledge of a particular market under investigation. In carrying out the investigation, the MMC obtains information from a wide range of experts in relevant fields as required and often retains consultants to provide expert advice.

  The chairman of the MMC informs me that the MMC group investigating this case had access to expert advice on Scottish law and the Scottish property market.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the regulation of the private health insurance sector. [8180]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The private health insurance sector is regulated through a combination of statutory legislation and industry best practice. Underwrites of health insurance are subject to prudential supervision under the Insurance Companies Act 1982; insurance intermediaries active in this field are subject to regulation under the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977 or industry-regulation under the Association of British Insurers general business code of practice. The Government continue to keep this under review.

  Food Safety
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what way she plans to implement the product safety directive concerning the mixing of unwrapped non-food articles with food products; what is the purpose of this legislation; what representations she has received from the food industry on this issue; what food products will be exempted; and if she will make a statement. [10204]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The general product Ssfety directive lays down general rules for assessing the safety of consumer products. There is concern that if unwrapped non-food items are sold mixed in with food products there would be a possibility that consumers could accidentally ingest them with consequent risk of injury. It has been agreed that European member states will ascertain whether such products are on sale within their national territories and inform the European Commission accordingly. My Department is investigating the position in the UK. I have received no representations from the food industry on this subject.

  National Physical Laboratory
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made towards providing improved facilities for the National Physical Laboratory under the private finance initiative. [10379]

  Mr. Battle
  I am pleased to announce that I have today confirmed Laser—a joint venture between John Laing and Serco—as preferred tenderer for the redevelopment of the National Physical Laboratory's site at Teddington. Laser will now proceed to develop detailed plans to provide serviced accommodation for NPL and I hope to enter into a formal contract with it by November this year.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the level of coal imports into Britain for each of the last 10 years; and what percentage of these imports are used in British power stations. [9291]

  Mr. Battle
  Available information is as follows:

  Year

  Coal imports into United Kingdom1
  2

  Percentage of imports used in UK power stations3 4

  1987

  9,781

  —

  1988

  11,685

  —

  1989

  12,137

  —

  1990

  14,783

  29.5

  1991

  19,611

  37.2

  1992

  20,339

  37.9

  1993

  18,400

  28.1

  1994

  15,088

  24.4

  1995

  15,896

  27.0

  1996

  17,799

  39.0

  1 The 1993 import figure includes an additional estimate for unrecorded trade.

  2 Source: HM Customs and Excise

  3 Sources: Data for Great Britain from April 1990 provided by Eastern Merchant Generation Ltd., National Power, PowerGen and Scottish Power. Data for Northern Ireland prior to March 1992 provided by Northern Ireland Electricity. Data for Northern Ireland from March 1992 provided NIGEN.

  4 This information was not collected before April 1990.

  Southampton University
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will visit Romsey to discuss with students of Southampton university the employment effects of the Government's minimum wage policy; and if she will make a statement. [9196]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have no plans at present to visit the students of Southampton university. The national minimum wage will be introduced sensibly taking account of the economic circumstances prevailing at the time. The independent Low Pay Commission will recommend to Government the level at which the minimum wage might be introduced having considered all relevant economic circumstances, including the possible effect on employment, before formulating its recommendation.

  Consumer Credit Licensing
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the key functions of the consumer credit licensing appeals system; when the system was established; and by what authority. [9634]
  503
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the Director General of Fair Trading can decide not to grant, or to revoke, a consumer credit licence.

  In the event that the director general decides to refuse an application for a licence, or to revoke an existing licence, the Act provides for a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. The procedure for appeals is set out in the 1976 appeals regulations.

  I am considering making revisions to the 1976 regulations to speed up the appeals procedure and improve the decision making process. I have issued a consultation paper and will finalise the policy when I have considered the responses. A copy of the consultation paper is in the Library of the House.

  Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the key functions of the advisory committee on arbitration law; when the committee was established; by what authority; and if she will list the names of the chairman and the Secretary. [9632]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The departmental advisory committee on arbitration law was set up in March 1985 by the then Secretary of State with the following terms of reference:(i) To consider the draft model law on international commercial arbitration adopted by a working group of the United Nations commission on international trade law in February 1984 and, in the light of any representations made by British interests, to advise the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry:
  (a) Upon any modification which the committee consider should be proposed by Her Majesty's Government to the text of the draft model law prior to its adoption by the commission;
  (b) If and when a model law is adopted by the Commission, upon whether, and to what extent, the provisions of the model law should be implemented in England and Wales and upon what associated changes should be made to the law of England and Wales:
  (ii) To examine the operation of the Arbitration Acts 1950 to 1979 in the light of the model law and to recommend to the Secretary of State any legislative or other steps which the committee considers should be taken to improve the system of arbitration in England and Wales;
  (iii) To advise the Secretary of State, where appropriate, upon the implications which any changes resulting from their recommendations for arbitration in England and Wales may have for arbitration in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  The DAC's formal work came to an end in January 1997 with commencement in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of the Arbitration Act 1996. The most recent chairman was Lord Justice Saville, now Lord Saville, and the secretariat was provided by the Department of Trade and Industry. A separate committee under the chairmanship of Lord Dervaird is considering aspects of Scottish arbitration law.

  Overseas Projects Board
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the key functions of the Overseas Projects Board; when the board was established; by what authority; and if she will list the names of the chairman and the Secretary. [9630]
  504
  Mrs. Roche
  The Overseas Projects Board was established in 1977 as a separate group within the framework of the British Overseas Trade Board to give Ministers and their officials independent advice on issues affecting UK industry's ability to compete effectively for major project business overseas.

  The present chairman is Andrew Buxton, chairman of Barclays bank and the secretary is Geoffrey Nuttall, an official in the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Travel Industry
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the representatives of the outbound travel industry whom the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs met in the United Kingdom between 1 May and 1 July. [9427]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: Between 1 May and 1 July I have had official meetings in the UK with the following:
  Steven Freudman and Ian Reynolds from ABTA; Alan Fluke and Martin Brackenbury from FTO; Chris Kirker and Julia Hendry from AITO.

  Internet
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what data her Department collects on activity on the Internet. [9444]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The Department of Trade and Industry subscribes to a number of proprietary studies and surveys of Internet activity. In addition, under the Government's IT for All initiative, run by the Department, two surveys of attitudes towards and usage of the Internet have been conducted. The first of these was published in December 1996 and the second will be published later this year. Also as part of a recent international benchmarking study, commissioned by the Department from Spectrum Strategy Consultants, the NOP research group collected information on, among other things, Internet activity in five countries—UK, USA, Japan, Germany and France. This study will be published by the end of this month. I will ensure that copies of the second IT for All survey and the international benchmarking study are placed in the Library of the House.

  EU Internal Market
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the United Kingdom's record on implementing measures to complete the European internal market; and what assessment she has made of the record of other member states of the European Union in this respect. [9452]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: I am placing a Commission table showing the state of transposition of the single market directives into national law in the UK and other member states in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps her Department is taking to ensure completion of the European internal market; and within what timetable. [9440]
  505
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: Enhancement of the single market is a Government priority. We have helped to secure a warm welcome at the Amsterdam European Council for the Commission's action plan for the single market. The plan detailed an ambitious set of objectives for the next three presidencies of the Council of Ministers—Luxembourg, UK and Austria—to achieve practical improvements in the single market. The action plan closely reflects key UK priorities for the single market, including:

  Improvements in the enforcement of single market rules;

  Measures to simplify existing legislation and reduce burdens on business;

  A tightening up of rules on state aids;

  Measures to liberalise public utilities.

  In addition, the Department has a unit called "action single market" which helps UK business overcome illegal state aids and trade barriers in other single market countries. It has scored successes in overcoming barriers across a wide range of sectors and problems types.

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will publish the planned Green Paper on late payment of debt; and what will be the consultation programme on it. [9439]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The Green Paper will be published before the summer recess. The closing date for responses will be 3 October. During the consultation period we will welcome views in writing or in person from all those who have an interest.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what her Department's policy is on the timely payment of debt; and what its record has been on debt payment in the current financial year. [9324]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: All Departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is the later, where no such terms exist. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the autumn.

  Consumer Issues
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the hon. Members with whom she or her Ministers had meetings to discuss consumer issues following the questionnaire on that topic. [9442]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: No. I have met a number of hon. Members from all parts of the House to discuss matters relating to the consumer questionnaire and received letters of thanks from several of her hon. Friends.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the hon. Members who responded to the questionnaire on consumer issues. [9441]

  Mr. Griffiths
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: No.

  Nuclear Fusion
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the results of her Department's research into nuclear fusion; and if she will list the projects funded by her Department's expenditure on nuclear fusion since 1986. [8920]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: My Department' s expenditure on nuclear fusion is managed by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, which uses it to pay its subscription to the Joint European Torus project and to carry out fusion research that is part of the European Union's fusion programme. The EU programme—including JET—is evaluated regularly, and the report of the most recent evaluation under the chairmanship of Professor Barabaschi was published in December 1996. I shall arrange for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The UKAEA' s research is regularly monitored by the European Commission and by officials of my Department.

  The projects funded by this expenditure since 1986 include:

  Three conventional tokamak devices: Closed Line Experiment (CLEO—to 1987), Divertor and Injection Tokamak Experiment (DEATH—to 1989), Compact Assembly (COMPASS—from 1989)

  Two spherical tokamak devices: Small Tight Aspect Ratio

  Tokamak (STARTfrom 1990), Mega-Amp Spherical

  Tokamak (MATST under construction)

  Reverse field pinch device: High Beta Toroidal Experiment (HBTX—to 1991)

  Negative Ion Neutral Bema Development Project (to 1992)

  Microwave heating systems—Electron Cyclotron Resonant Heating (ECRH—from 1990)

  Materials Development Projects (to 1990)

  Reactor design studies

  Safety and Environmental Assessments (from 1992).

  Sustainably Produced Timber
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make it her policy to ban imports of timber other than from sustainable managed forests. [9535]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear the Government's commitment to sustainable forestry in his answer of the 3 July, Official Report, column 234.

  The UK intends to adopt a new forest standard which will provide a benchmark for the regeneration of forests.

  We believe that the best way to protect the world's forests is by extending this approach multilaterally rather than by imposing a unilateral ban on timber imports. We will continue to work with timber-producing countries to help improve forest management standards world wide and ensure long-term conservation.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much her Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time her Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by her Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to

  507
  1 March; and if she will review her Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8813]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: The DTI does not bike press releases. Such information is distributed by the Central Office of Information's news distribution service, NDS.

  NDS's delivery mechanisms include a newswire service which supplies press release to the Parliamentary Online Information Service, POLIS, which can be accessed by all MPs and Lords, hand deliveries, fax and postal deliveries, online database and a widely accessed web site on the Internet.

  These mechanisms are used either singly or in combination to ensure the most cost effective methods are used to reach the relevant target audiences and to suit the nature of the documents—for instance, whether press releases are dispatched on their own, or accompanied by reports, consultation documents etc; no separate costing is available for the hand delivery service alone.

  The number of press releases that my Department put out through NDS for the period 1 May to 1 July was 115. For the period 1 January to 1 March there were 180 press releases issued through NDS. My Department and the COI keep a watching brief on new developments to ensure the most cost effective delivery mechanism are used at all times.

  International Development
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the civil servants who are co-ordinating her Department's input into the White Paper on International Development. [9313]

  Mrs. Roche
  The preparation of the forthcoming White Paper on international development involves input from a number of different DTI directorates with the new issues and developing countries directorate acting as a liaison point within the Department.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what trans-shipment licences the Government have granted for electro-shock batons since 1990; and if she will list both originating and recipient countries. [9468]

  Mrs. Roche
  One trans-shipment licence has been granted since 1990. This was granted on 19 April 1993 for goods originating in the USA and destined for Saudi Arabia.

  Petrol Pumps
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when new regulations will be introduced to tighten controls on the verification of petrol pumps by repairers. [7785]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I am currently examining how best to protect consumers following the decision announced by the last Government on 10 June 1996 to deregulate weights and measures and allow self verification by manufacturers and others.
  508
  At my invitation, representatives of the Information Technology Services Agency and Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards met me with the chief executive Seton Bennett of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory. Hewill hold further discussions with ITSA and LACOTS on how best to protect consumers and will report to me as soon as practicable.

  Rights of Trade Union Members
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review the financing, terms of reference and working of the committee for the rights of trade union members; and if he will make a statement. [9779]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department intends to consider the role and functions of the Commissioner for the rights of trade union members, together with other fairness at work issues, later this year.

  Aid and Trade
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 646, if she will list the representations which her Department has received on retaining the aid and trade provisions and place a copy of each in the Library. [9476]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: Nearly all the representations received since 1 June have been oral.

  The Department has also received written representations from the Export Group for the Constructional Industries and Major British Exporters. With the agreement of those organisations, I am placing copies of their letters in the Library of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many and what percentage of employees in his private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8943]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has five employees in his private office, none of whom is of Asian or Afro-Caribbean origin.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many and what percentage of employees, in each pay band, in the quangos for which his Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [8944]

  Mr. Clarke
  It is not possible to provide the information requested without incurring a disproportionate cost to the Department.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many civil servants there are on each payband in his Department. [8945]
  509
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The number of civil servants in each pay band within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as at 17 July 1997 is shown in the following table:

  Number

  SCS

  21

  A(U)

  7

  A(L)

  48

  B

  83

  HEOD

  4

  C

  68

  D(U)

  74

  D(L)

  31

  Grade equivalents:

  SCS: Grade 5 and above

  Grade A(U): Grade 6 and equivalent grades

  Grade A(L): Grade 7 and equivalent grades

  Grade B: HEO/SEO and equivalent grades

  HEOD: Combined admin trainee HEO (development) grade

  Grade C: EO and equivalent grades

  Grade D(U): AO and equivalent grades

  Grade D(L): AA and equivalent grades.

  Welfare to Work
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the work opportunities which the tourism industry can offer under the welfare-to-work programme. [7523]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: Tourism is one of the UK's leading growth industries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be calling together people from tourism, hospitality and leisure to discuss how we can achieve our welfare to work objectives and help meet the industry's staffing needs.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what evidence he has evaluated that a not-for-profit national lottery would generate as much money for the good causes as the present lottery; [9445]

  (2) what success he has had in attracting interests from companies to bid for the opportunity to run the national lottery in 2001 on a non-profit-making basis; [9449]

  (3) if the Government plan to consider a bid to run the national lottery by Camelot in 2001 on a profit-making basis; [9447]

  (4) what is his policy towards the continuation of a profit-making national lottery; [9446]

  (5) if the Government remain committed to the principle of operating the national lottery on a non-profit-making basis; [9451]

  (6) what representations he has received from companies showing an interest in operating the national lottery on a non-profit-making basis when the present contract expires in 2001. [9448]
  510
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: Lottery proceeds should go to the good causes, with the minimum necessary being used to run the lottery efficiently and in the public interest. We will seek an efficient, not-for-profit and competitive operator on this basis. I made a statement about this matter to the House on 21 July, Official Report, columns 685–98.

  Camelot, if it chooses to bid, will be properly considered as a candidate to manage the new arrangements at the end of the current licence period.

  To date, I have received no formal representations from any other companies wishing to run the lottery after the year 2001.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportions of(a) the national lottery, (b) bets on the Irish lottery and (c) other numbers draws are taken for (i) tax and (ii) good causes. [9900]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have been asked to reply. Twelve per cent. tax is deducted from national lottery stakes and 6.75 per from bets on the Irish lottery and other numbers draws; 30 per cent. of national lottery stakes go to good causes; there is no statutory good causes deduction from Irish lottery or other numbers bets.

  Works of Art
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half year ended 30 June of individual works of art and museum objects pre-eminent for national, scientific, historic or artistic interest which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax, together with information, where applicable, as to conditions or wishes expressed by testators or executors in the matter of allocation; and if he will list the works of art and museum objects which are still awaiting allocation with the respective dates of their acceptance in satisfaction of inheritance tax. [8978]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: The information which the hon. Member requests is as follows:

  Item(s)

  To whom allocated

  Conditions/wishes expressed

  Landscape with Lord Coventry on a Blue Roan Horse and Deer, Hounds and Attendants and a Dead Stag (painting) by John Wootton

  The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty (for display at Antony House, Cornwall)

  Conditional offer

  Still Life with an upturned roemer (painting) by Willem Claez. Heda

  Norfolk County Council (for display at the Castle Museum, Norwich)

  Wish as to allocation

  Two German Drawings: one by Martin Schongauer and one by Jörg Breu the Elder

  Board of Trustees of the British Museum

  Conditional offer

  The House of Worth Peacock Gown

  The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty (for display at Kedleston Hall, Derbyshire)

  Conditional offer

  511

  Item(s)

  To whom allocated

  Conditions/wishes expressed

  Two archives of documents relating to estates in Cumbria and Somerst

  Cumbria County Council (for retention at the Cumbria Record Office) and Somerset County Council (for retention at the Somerset Record Office

  Wish as to allocation

  A Seventeenth century pair cased alarm striking clock watch by Edward East

  Board of Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside (for display at the Prescot Museum of Clock and Watch Making, Prescot)

  Unconditional offer

  Staffelsee (painting) by Wassily Kandinsky

  Chancellors, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford (for display at the Ashmolean Museum)

  Wish as to allocation

  Items awaiting allocation

  Date of acceptance

  Library Furniture by William Gomm

  19 January 1994

  Christ Brought before Pontius Pilate (painting) by Luca Cambiaso

  25 January 1996

  18th-century French furniture

  28 March 1996

  Stepping Stones on the Wharfe (painting) by Thomas Girtin

  27 August 1996

  A Queen Anne year-going longcase clock by Daniel Quare

  5 December 1996

  A portrait of Lord Thurlow by George Romney

  21 March 1997

TREASURY

  Public Utilities
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his Department's definition of a public utility; [7577]

  (2) if his Department defines Railtrack plc as a public utility. [7703]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  There is no single, commonly accepted definition of a utility. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a public utility as"an organisation supplying water, gas, etc to the community".

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the dates and attendees by Department and grade of meetings of officials which have taken place in his Department on the strategic defence review. [6761]
  512
  Mr. Darling
  Various meetings have been held on various dates. It is not practical to list those attending. In any event, it is a long-established convention that Ministers are responsible for all policy decisions.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Ministers and Treasury officials who attended the Foreign Office seminar on the strategic defence review. [7825]

  Mr. Darling
  No Treasury Ministers or officials attended the first strategic defence review seminar on 3 July. An official attended the second seminar on 11 July.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate what additional revenue in Scotland would be raised by a 1p in the pound increase in the rate of income tax at(a) the 20p lower rate, (b) the 23p basic rate and (c) the 40p top rate. [9114]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: The latest estimates, which relate to 1995–96, are as follows:

  Full year yield at 1995–96 income levels £ million

  a. Increase lower rate by 1p

  60

  b. Increase basic rate by 1p

  150

  c. Increase higher rate by 1p

  30

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make further changes to the level of mortgage interest tax relief at source; and if he will make a statement. [9487]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: The level of mortgage interest relief is a matter to be considered each year in the Budget. The costs and benefits of all reliefs are kept under review to ensure that they continue to provide best value for money, and mortgage interest relief is no exception.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on United Kingdom business investment in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 consequent on the reforms in the taxation of businesses and dividends contained in his Budget; and if he will make a statement. [9485]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: The corporation tax reforms will encourage better quality and more long-term investment and so benefit the economy. They encourage companies to retain and reinvest profits and, with the substantial tax rate cuts, provide a very attractive environment in which to do so.

  Windfall tax
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the potential legal obstacles to the timely collection of the windfall tax. [9701]
  513
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: The Government are satisfied that the legislative provisions for the implementation of the windfall tax are legally robust.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what checks are being made by Inland Revenue inspectors to ensure that some companies in the construction industry do not gain an unfair advantage by classing employed labour as self-employed. [9791]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: Specialist Inland Revenue staff involved in the review and checking of payroll records are working to ensure that construction businesses comply with their legal liabilities for PAYE and national insurance contributions. Where they find that contractors are not properly accounting for these duties, they will normally seek arrears back to 6 April 1997. Where there is evidence of evasion, payment will be sought for earlier years. Interest and penalties may also be charged in appropriate cases.

  Offshore Trusts
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the Exchequer of tax avoidance schemes involving the holding shares in offshore trusts in which Government Ministers are beneficiaries since 1 May. [9796]

  Pay bands

  Asian

  Afro-Caribbean

  Number

  Percentage of total number of staff in those pay bands

  Number

  Percentage of total number of staff in those pay bands

  Total numbers of staff

  Equivalent FCO

  0

  0

  0

  0

  191

  Senior management structure pay bands 1–7

  Equivalent FCO

  15

  3.2

  6

  1.3

  468

  DS6/SEO-DS5S/HCS6

  Equivalent FCO

  50

  7.8

  39

  6.1

  641

  AA-DS7/HEO

  Totals

  65

  5

  45

  3.4

  1,300

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what percentage of employees in his private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8955]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Staff within this Department are not obliged to report their ethnic origins. A voluntary staff survey into ethnic origins was carried out in 1989 and 89 per cent. of staff responded. We have since invited all new entrants to complete the questionnaire. Staff are assured that the information gathered from their responses to the survey will be used for statistical purposes only.

  Staff working in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's office have been asked if they would be prepared to have the results of their own returns to the
  514
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Member's question. Comprehensive information about the beneficiaries of offshore trusts is not held, nor required in all cases, by the Inland Revenue.

  Sustainably Produced Timber
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's purchasing policy in respect of timber from sustainably managed forests. [9534]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: Decisions regarding the procurement of goods and services, including timber or related products, are the responsibility of individual Departments. In taking such decisions, Departments must have regard to the need to secure best value for the taxpayer's money, to EU and other international rules on procurement and to their strategies for environmentally friendly housekeeping. In pursuing these aims, Departments can be expected to seek timber from sustainable sources where practicable.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what percentage of employees, in each pay band, responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [8956]

  Mr. Fatchett
  It is not possible to give precise statistics because the information we hold concerning ethnic origins is based on questionnaires completed voluntarily by staff. On the basis of those questionnaires, the position is as follows:

  survey made public. Since some of them are not so prepared, I regret that I cannot give the information requested.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what percentage of civil servants in each of grades 1 to 5 in his Department are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9567]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Staff within this Department are not obliged to report their ethnic origins. According to a regular survey of staff, conducted on a voluntary and confidential basis, this Department employs no civil servants of Asian or Afro-Caribbean origin in the equivalents of home civil service grades 1 to 5.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants there are on each pay band in his Department. [8957]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Hitherto pay bands have been introduced into this Department only for the senior management structure. The numbers at each pay band are:

  Number

  Grade 1

  10

  SMS9

  1

  SMS8

  7

  SMS7

  22

  SMS6

  16

  SMS5

  46

  SMS4

  69

  SMS3

  71

  SMS2

  92

  SMS1

  117

  The numbers employed in the remainder of this Department, classified by grade level, are:

  Number

  DS5S/HCS6

  86

  DS5/HCS7

  574

  DS6/SEO

  370

  DS7M/HEO

  870

  DS7D/8/HEO(D)

  162

  DS9/EO

  1,524

  DS10/EA/AO

  1,421

  AA

  233

  Australia
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's role in sponsoring the EU-Australia declaration on closer ties; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the declaration on Britain's Commonwealth links with Australia. [9645]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have always advocated closer EU-Australia relations. This Department together with other Whitehall Departments has worked hard to ensure a good EU-Australia joint declaration. We therefore warmly welcome the signature of the joint declaration as a foundation for strengthened EU-Australia co-operation into the next century. The joint declaration is unlikely to have any direct effect on our Commonwealth links with Australia, but as the prime proponent of the declaration the UK has reinforced its role as Australia's partner of choice in the EU, building on an already excellent bilateral relationship.

  Police and Judicial Co-operation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the European Commission played at Denver on the issue of international police and judicial co-operation; if(a) the Schengen Agreement and (b) the Title VI material of the draft Amsterdam treaty were discussed during the proceedings at Denver; and if he will make a statement. [9690]
  516
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  International crime was one of the main focuses of discussion at the Denver summit of the G8. The European Commission was fully involved in the discussion on crime, but neither the Schengen agreement nor title VI issues were raised.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the text of the Amsterdam treaty deposited in the Library is the final draft; if articles in that text may be altered substantially before the treaty is signed; which articles are currently under negotiation; and if he will make a statement. [9692]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The text placed in the Libraries of the House is a provisional version of the draft treaty of Amsterdam. The presidency is reviewing its contents, in consultation with the member states, to ensure that it accurately reflects what was agreed at Amsterdam. The text will also be recorded and scrutinised by jurist-linguists, which may result in technical changes to a number of articles.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what provisions of the Amsterdam treaty information may be passed(a) from EU institutions to the Schengen secretariat and (b) from the Schengen secretariat to EU institutions. [9642]

  Mr. Henderson
  There are no provisions in the Amsterdam treaty relating to the passage of information between the EU institutions and the Schengen Secretariat. Under article F of the Schengen protocol"the Council, shall, acting by a qualified majority, adopt the modalities for the integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council".

  European Documents (Access)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions the European Commission has denied a request for access to documents from an outside source since the establishment of the European Ombudsman; and what is the nature of the documents which have been withheld. [9644]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under the code of conduct approved by the Council and the Commission concerning public access to documents, it is for each institution to implement the principles in the code as they concern access to its documents. We do not therefore hold detailed information on the requests for access to documents that have been refused by the Commission.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's recent discussions with the Minister of Justice of Sri Lanka. [9841]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I met the Sri Lankan Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and Deputy Minister of Finance, Professor G. L. Peiris, on 19 June. We discussed bilateral economic relations and the current situation in Sri Lanka, including the Sri Lankan Government's efforts to find a resolution to the ethnic conflict.

  Pakistan (Bear Baiting)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Pakistan about the suffering of bears in bear-baiting contests. [9769]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our high commission in Islamabad has made representations to the Pakistani authorities in the past about the practice of bear baiting. In view of recent reports, they will raise the issue again and urge the Government of Pakistan to take steps to enforce the law banning this abhorrent practice.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the conclusions of phase 1 of the strategic defence review. [10105]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Work on stage 1 of the strategic defence review is continuing. No decision has been taken on publication.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the submissions that he has received as part of the strategic defence review. [10145]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Ministry of Defence and this Department have received a large number of submissions. These are the property of the authors and may not be circulated outside Government without the author's consent. We shall seek that consent and place in the libraries of the House copies of submissions whose authors consent.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10192]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are the lead Department in a review of the detailed criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional weapons. Its purpose is to give effect to the Government's commitment not to sell arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression or international aggression.

  The review is being concluded as a matter of urgency. The new criteria will be published shortly.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Procurement Policies
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects to complete the social audit of her Department's procurement policies. [7833]

  Clare Short
  We are currently examining the feasibility of a social audit. We have no specific timetable. We have started to review our procurement policies, initially with respect to contracts for Department for International development-funded construction projects.
  518
  We are drawing up a detailed proposition for a DFID code of conduct for works contracts, to ensure that no project with which DFID is associated has unacceptable health and safety or employment practices. In support of this work, the development co-operation office in Delhi is studying the situation of construction workers on DFID-funded projects in India. The conclusions from this particular study will be available by November.

  policy Review
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10181]

  Clare Short
  My Department is currently undertaking two key exercises; the preparation of a White Paper on development and the departmental spending review.

  The purpose of the White Paper is to set out the Government's development agenda for the elimination of poverty and coherence of policies towards developing countries. The White Paper will be published in October.

  The departmental spending review will examine all DFID' s programme to ensure that the resources allocated to my Department contribute directly to the achievement of the Government's development objectives as set out in the White Paper. Emerging conclusions are expected by November.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 July,Official Report, column 323, if he will set out a schedule of the proposed refurbishment of the Lord Chancellor's official residence and offices within the Palace of Westminster, together with estimated costs. [9342]

  Mr. Hoon
  I confirm that the cost of the proposal will be in the region of £650,000. The bulk of the costs will be incurred on the restoration and refurbishment of the state rooms. I can also confirm that the following works are included in the proposals:

  Replacement and/or restoration of furniture

  Redecoration, including wallcoverings

  Replacement of soft furnishings, such as carpets, curtains and blinds

  Replacement of light fittings

  Miscellaneous work and services, including plumbing, heating, fire detection systems, electrical works and porterage charges.

  The total estimated cost of £650,000 also includes fees to cover the work of a structural engineer, the preparations of designs—for light fittings and reproduction furniture—and the services of a quantity surveyor. In addition to these works, the residence will be further enhanced by the loan of very many paintings and sculptures, free of any charge, by major national institutions. The Palace of Westminster—House of Lords is moreover considering the implications of a proposal to open the state rooms to the public so that the public could benefit from viewing

  519
  both the residence, restored in accordance with an historically authentic scheme, and the works of art and sculpture within it.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10190]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is undertaking two departmental policy reviews. Details for each are as follows:

  First, a review of the Equal Opportunities Commission is being undertaken during 1997–98. The aim is to review the functions of the EOC, the effectiveness with which they have been carried out and the likely need in the future for these functions. The review will consider the case for the continued existence of the EOC and how its functions can be best fulfilled. It will also consider the powers, constitutional status, membership and terms of reference of the EOC. The review will have regard to the Government's equal opportunities policies and to the duties of the commission as laid down in statute.

  The Outcome of the review will be reported by 11 September 1997.

  Secondly, a review of the Employment Service performance targets is being undertaken to ensure that the nature and level of targets set enable the ES to deliver to Ministers' priorities and have the maximum positive impact on the labour market while maintaining a high level of customer contact.

  The review will report to Ministers by December of this year and will give details of the development of targets for 1998-99 and beyond.

  Sir Christopher Hatton School, Wellingborough
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will determine the reference to him by the Sir Christopher Hatton school, Wellingborough, under section 432(3) of the Education Act 1996. [10381]

  Mr. Byers
  The Secretary of state has today determined that Sir Christopher Hatton school should admit all of the children concerned.

  National Disability Council
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the National Disability Council will report on its activities during the 1996–97 financial year. [10345]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am pleased to announce that the Secretary of State has today laid the National Disability Council's second annual report before Parliament.
  520
  The NDC has reported on its activities from April 1996 to March 1997 and set out what it hopes to achieve during 1997-98. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Chefs (Work Permits)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the meeting between the hon. Member for Leicester, East and the Under-Secretary of State for Employment on 30 June, if he will make a statement on what action he has taken with regard to the case of Mr. Roy. [9563]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As my hon. Friend is aware, the Department's overseas labour service has already issued a work permit for Mr. Roy to work in the UK as a chef. Mr. Roy also requires an entry visa which, I understand, has been refused. Visas are the responsibility of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I understand that that Department is currently looking into its decision in this case.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many work permits were issued for(a) Indian food and (b) Chinese food chefs in 1996. [9885]

  Mr. Howarth
  The specific information requested is not available. However, about 200 work permits were issued to chefs in 1996.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons are employed on work permit issues in his Department. [9886]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department's overseas labour service, which deals with work permit issues, has 120 staff.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of employees in his private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8961]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of staff of Asian origin in private office is fewer than six and is therefore not shown, in accordance with the Department's agreed code of conduct on the use of ethnic monitoring data.

  The number of staff of Afro-Caribbean origin in the private office is seven. The percentage of staff of Afro-Caribbean origin in private office is 14 per cent. of those who have chosen to state their ethnic origin, 11 per cent. of the total number of staff.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the audit of Youth Service provision will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [9478]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is consulting currently about the form and content of the audit of youth service provision. We intend to write to local authorities in the
  521
  late autumn when the responses have been fully considered. Authorities will be given about three months to respond.

  Student Governors
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the number of student governors in further education in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [9135]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 15 July, Official Report, column 122. Matters concerning further education institutions in Wales are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  GCSE Performance Tables
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's assessment of the advantages of(a) including the number of pupils on the roll in September of year 11 in the performance tables for GCSE results and (b) including only those pupils who take GCSE exams. [9011]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The 1997 secondary school performance tables will be based on the achievements of all pupils of the relevant age on roll at the time of the schools census in January. The tables will not therefore be influenced by different school policies on the entry of pupils for GCSE examinations, but will allow comparisons to be made on the basis of the achievements of all pupils by the end of compulsory schooling. Schools are, however, already able to provide for publication the GCSE achievements of all pupils in year 11, regardless of age, and value added measures will soon help give a fuller picture of school performance.

  Excluded Pupils
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that when a school permanently excludes a pupil that place is made available to an excluded pupil from another school. [9085]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Where a school has spare places they must be offered to any suitable applicants, regardless of their disciplinary record.

  Early Years Development Plans
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy, when considering interim early years development plans submitted to him, not to approve plans which do not include provision for the reduction in numbers of four-year-olds currently in reception classes; and if he will make a statement. [8494]

  Mr. Byers
  The Secretary of State approved 79 interim early years development plans on 11 July, all of which include proposals for raising standards. This is an encouraging response to the Government's early years policy. We are grateful to local authorities for all their hard work on the plans, particularly given the tight timetable.

  Schools (Capital Funding)
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will be taking into account factors relating to economic and social deprivation when assessing the improvement in performance that schools need to make in order to be eligible for a share of the £1.3 billion set aside for capital funding to deal with their disrepair; and how these factors will be weighted in the analysis. [9010]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 17 July,Official Report, column 308.

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how often since its establishment his Department has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9509]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  For jobs within the Department and the Employment Service, no age restrictions apply with the exception of places on the modern apprenticeship scheme where age limits reflect the requirements of the national program.

  When advertising posts for other employers, the Employment Service challenges age restrictions placed on vacancies to try to persuade employers to consider jobseekers on their merits. However, no records are kept of the number of vacancies displayed with age restrictions.

  New Deal
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what use will be made of local partnerships under his Department's new deal proposals for providing employment for young people. [8679]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Employment Service, working closely with the Government and the Scottish and Welsh Offices, will act as the lead agency in the delivery of new deal. This will be done in partnership with other agencies and organisations—including employers, local authorities, training and enterprise councils, career service, further education bodies, voluntary and environmental organisations, and others.

  Bringing together the knowledge, services and initiative of all those who can play a part will be an important factor in delivering the new deal for unemployed people.

  During the next few months, we shall be building on existing local partnerships where feasible, or establishing new ones where necessary. These partnerships will help ES in planning the nature, volume and delivery arrangements for new deal in each location.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the employment option in the new deal will require minimum pay and conditions from employers who agree to take part. [8209]

  Mr. Smith
  The design of the new deal will be developed alongside the Government's other employment policies, so that the benefits of all are maximised.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that communication support is provided under the welfare-to-work scheme for all deaf young people who require it; and how the provision of communication support will be administered. [9768]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We intend that disabled young people will get the help they need to meet the aim of improving their long-term employability. Detailed proposals about how this help can be provided will be developed.

CABINET OFFICE

  Prime Minister's Questions
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is his role in the drafting and distribution of Prime Minister's Questions. [10112]

  Mr. Mandelson
  None.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what factors led his Department to undertake a review of ministerial accountability; and what is its remit and scope. [10108]

  Dr. David Clark
  Our manifesto promised that"Ministerial accountability will be reviewed so as to remove recent abuses".
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Council has invited the Select Committee on the Modenisation of the House of Commons to look at the means by which the House holds Ministers to account, and the Government will be ready to put papers to that Committee in the autumn. Our review will also cover the guidance given to Ministers on matters of conduct and procedure.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each Cabinet Office policy review currently in progress or scheduled(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10196]

  Dr. David Clark
  We are committed to reviewing ministerial accountability, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Council has asked the House of Commons Modernisation Select Committee to consider the means by which the House holds Ministers to account. The Government will be ready to put a paper to the Select Committee in the autumn.

  On quangos, we have announced that our intention is to reduce overall numbers, Official Report, 4 June 1997, column 192, and we are also committed to enhancing the openness and accountability of these bodies.
  524
  The outcome of both these reviews will be set out in the White Paper on "Better Government", the publication of which I announced in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), Official Report, 3 June 1997, column 119.

  We have conducted a review of the existing code of practice on access to Government information to ensure that it can provide an adequate level of openness in the period until our proposed freedom of information Act comes into force. We have concluded that the discretionary elements of the code allow sufficient flexibility to achieve this. However, changes to the code may be considered if this proves not to be the case.

  Like all Government Departments, we are also participating in the comprehensive spending review, the results of which will be published in the next 12 months.

WALES

  Further Education Report
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the conclusions and recommendations of the second report of the Welsh Affairs Committee into further education in Wales, HC 64 96–97. [10386]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Government have today published a command paper, Cm 3708, responding to the Committee's conclusions and recommendations. On behalf of this House, I thank the Committee for their thorough and wide-ranging inquiry into further education in Wales. The Government's response, so soon after the publication of our first White Paper on Education in Wales, further demonstrates our firm commitment to making education and training more relevant and accessible to our young and adult people, and it will make a significant contribution to delivering the Government's plans for promoting life-long learning.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his statement in "Wales Deserves a Voice", how a Welsh Assembly will ensure that a future government would no longer be able to impose legislation such as the poll tax. [9554]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: The Welsh Assembly would be the credible voice of the Welsh people. The White Paper, "A Voice for Wales", makes it clear that the Government expect the Welsh Assembly to work in partnership with the Westminster Parliament and the Government of the day. Any attempt to override the clearly expressed views of the Assembly would put that partnership in jeopardy.

  Implementation of the poll tax depended upon the exercise by the Secretary of State of a multiplicity of orderand regulation-making powers. If a Government wished to impose on Wales legislation which the Assembly opposed and which related to matters such as education or health that would normally be dealt with by the Assembly, it would either have to put all the detail in the new primary legislation or have to give all the powers in that legislation to the Secretary of State.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what innovations he will make it his policy to assist small businesses; [7861]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Welsh Development Agency to ensure improved services for new and small businesses. [7862]

  Mr. Hain
  We are committed to developing Business Connect, ensuring that it is able to respond more effectively to the needs of the small business sector. Specific initiatives will include: introducing new measures to tackle late payment; enhancing support for high technology start-ups; and better regulation. We also hope that small firms in Wales will take advantage of UK-wide initiatives like the university for industry. The Welsh Development Agency is a key player in Business Connect and will have a vital role in our efforts to support the development of the small firms sector. I met the North Wales Federation of Businesses in St. Asaph in May to discuss these and related matters.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the number of small businesses in Wales. [7860]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him on 3 June 1997,Official Report, column 128.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on how his regional policies will assist the location of new industries at(a) Engineer Park, Deeside, Flintshire, (b) Deeside Industrial Park, Flintshire and (c) Buckley, Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [7864]

  Mr. Hain
  The main form of regional aid available for companies wishing to pursue investment projects in Wales is regional selective assistance. The RSA scheme provides discretionary grants to viable businesses for investment projects which create or safeguard employment in assisted areas. Engineer Park and Deeside Industrial Park lie within the assisted area. Therefore, investment projects at these locations are eligible for RSA support.

  A range of other general industrial support measures is available throughout Wales with the objective of improving the performance of new and existing businesses and in particular supporting the development of small and medium sized enterprises. Buckley, and other non-assisted areas, will benefit from those measures.

  North Wales Health Authority
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings and discussions have taken place between the chief executive of the North Wales health authority and(a) the chairpersons of the acute trusts in North Wales and (b) the Director of the Health Division at the Welsh Office. [8332]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Meetings between staff of the North Wales health authority and chairmen and staff of NHS trusts in the area are a matter for those concerned. The director of the Welsh Office health department has frequent discussions with chief executives of all health authorities on a wide range of issues.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites of special scientific interest in Wales he estimates will be denotified in 1998 as a result of Government funded schemes; and if he will list them. [8785]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Countryside Council for Wales is responsible for designating sites of special scientific interest. There are currently no plans to denotify any SSSI in Wales during 1998.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the designated assisted areas lying within(a) the M4 corridor and (b) the A55 corridor. [10148]

  Mr. Hain
  The assisted areas in the eastern M4 corridor, are all of those within the Cardiff and Newport travel-to-work areas, and the southern parts of those within the Pontypool and Cwmbran, Pontypridd and Rhondda, and Bridgend travel-to-work areas.

  The assisted areas in the eastern A55 corridor are all of those within the Shotton, Flint and Rhyl and the Wrexham travel-to-work areas.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10182]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department's significant reviews are: a comprehensive spending review, to be completed in the next 12 months; a fundamental review of transport policy, to be completed spring 1998. In addition, my Department has an on-going programme of policy evaluations and reviews.

DEFENCE

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation defence agency for 1997–98. [10382]

  Dr. Reid
  The agency's key targets for 1997–98 are as follows:

  Quantity
  Target: To achieve 98 per cent. of scheduled quantity of MOD sales orders in year and thereby achieve the master schedule.

  Customer satisfaction
  Target: To achieve no more than 90 customer complaints.

  Timeliness
  Target: To achieve 93 per cent. of the delivery dates agreed with MOD customer.

  Cost
  Target: To achieve a reduction in the full operating cost of the NARO DA, from the 1995–96 figure, of at least 2.9 per cent. This is to include a reduction of at least 5.25 per cent

  527
  (£2.3 million) in operating costs, of which £1.5 million is mortgaged, and at least a 1.5 per cent. (£1.2 million) reduction in the cost of material consumed, and assumes constant output.

  Volume
  Target: To utilise 100 per cent. of the available capacity by ensuring existing and, when required, additional customers furnish the programmes of work against which resources have been allocated.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if consideration of the number of European fighter aircraft to be purchased will form part of the strategic defence review. [9516]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 26 June,Official Report, column 627.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 180, how many series of technical reports and pages are in current use by the atomic weapons establishment. [9495]

  Mr. Spellar
  The four main series of technical reports listed in the answer given to the hon. Member on 2 July 1997,Official Report, column 180, are still open but little used. Other internal reports and papers are produced by the various divisions of AWE, but numerical details are not held centrally and a census would require unreasonable diversion of resources. I am, therefore, in accordance with exemption 9 of the code of practice for open government, withholding this information.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many papers have been produced in the CXD memoranda series of technical papers and reports from the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston; when the papers were first produced in this series; when this series ended; and how many of the papers in this series are currently unclassified. [9472]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are 686 papers in the CXD—chemistry and explosives division—memoranda series, 230 of which are currently unclassified. The series started in 1979 and ended in 1991. More recent papers of this type are known as CXD technical reports, of which, from 1991 to date, there have been 255; 74 of these are currently unclassified.

  Service Personnel (Exposure to Radioactivity)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been carried out with radioactive substances at the nuclear, biological and chemical centre at Winterbourne Gunner in Wiltshire since 1967; if service personnel have been exposed to radioactive substance(a) intentionally and (b) accidentally during this work; what radioactive substances were involved in this work; for what purposes this work was carried out; and what the results of this work were. [6359]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Centre at Winterbourne Gunner does not conduct research with radioactive substances and available records show no evidence that such research has 528
  ever been conducted there. However, DNBCC does conduct training courses in NBC defence involving the use of low-level radioactive sources. Available records show that, during such training, no service personnel have been intentionally or accidentally exposed to radioactive sources, but that six personnel stationed at DNBCC at various times received small doses of radiation as a consequence of working with ionising radiation. In all cases, these were well within prescribed safe limits. The radioactive substances used at DNBCC are: tritium(H-3), cobalt-60, caesium-137, radium-226, chlorine-36, strontium-90 and nickel-63.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the link between exposure of soldiers to organophosphates during the Gulf war and Gulf war syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [8553]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: Research is currently under way to try to determine the effects of low-level exposure to organophosphate pesticides on human health in the context of ill health claimed by some farm workers. This work is sponsored jointly by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive and is due to report in 1999. This will be an important step towards understanding the possible effects of potential exposures to organophosphorous-based products of British troops during the Gulf war. However, pending the outcome of this and other work, there is no firm evidence to support a link between low level exposure to OPs and adverse health effects.

  HMY Britannia
  Mr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to proceed with proposals for the preservation of the royal yacht Britannia provided that they are viable. [9019]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: The Government are currently considering the future of HMY Britannia. An announcement will be made as soon as a decision has been reached.

  Invincible Class Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the procurement of replacements for the Invincible class carriers; and when a decision on replacement of the class is expected to be made. [9421]

  Mr. Spellar
  The requirement to provide platforms to support maritime fixed-wing air power beyond the projected lives of the current Invincible class carriers will be considered as part of the strategic defence review.

  Departmental Contractors
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many firms are on his Department's contractors list. [9404]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since 1994, the MOD has not maintained its own defence contractors list. Generally, for UK contractors, MOD now uses appropriately certified
  529
  companies listed in the Department of Trade and Industry's United Kingdom register of quality assessed companies. As an indication of the number of contractors with whom MOD deals, in June 1997 the Defence Bills Agency database showed that there were extant contracts with 10,320 contractors.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure on defence industry research and development in 1996. [9403]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department does not maintain statistics covering expenditure by the UK defence industry on research and development. Information, based on data collected by the Office of National Statistics, can be found in table 4.1 of "Science, Engineering and Technology Statistics 1996", Cm 3257-11, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons were court-martialled in each year since 1990. [9884]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of persons court-martialled in each year since 1990 is set out in the table:

  Year

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  1990

  38

  917

  145

  1,100 (989)

  1991

  50

  718

  153

  921 (884)

  1992

  82

  763

  149

  994 (892)

  1993

  115

  677

  128

  919 (774)

  1994

  113

  600

  91

  804 (676)

  1995

  111

  430

  104

  645 (515)

  The figures shown are the latest we have available to date and represent the total number of service personnel tried by court-martial within that period. The figures in brackets show the number of persons actually convicted of one or more offences.

  Under-18 Service Personnel
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy on the recruitment of volunteers under the age of 18 years into the armed forces. [9813]

  Dr. Reid
  The minimum age of recruitment of volunteers into the armed forces is 16 years.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances volunteers under the age of 18 years are(a) required and (b) permitted to be on active service in areas of armed conflict. [9815]

  Dr. Reid
  The armed forces comprise entirely of volunteers, regardless of the age of enlistment. Therefore, no service personnel are forced into active service in areas of armed conflict. However, once fully trained, all members of the armed forces are required to deploy to any area or duty, on orders from higher authority.

  Members of the armed forces are not deployed operationally until they are fully trained. As a general rule therefore, due to the period of training, personnel are not
  530
  deployed below the age of seventeen and a half years. Exceptions to this general rule may be personnel on board ship and members of the Royal Marines who could be re-deployed directly into an area of conflict from a location beyond the UK base.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy towards weapons training for volunteers aged under 18 years in the armed forces. [9811]

  Dr. Reid
  The policy towards weapons training in the armed forces is the same for all ages of volunteers. Weapons training and discipline forms an integral and essential part of the normal training programme.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of those persons aged under 18 years in the armed forces have been killed on active service since 1993. [9809]

  Dr. Reid
  No persons aged under 18 years in the armed forces have been killed on active service since 1993.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change his Department's policy towards volunteers aged under 18 years in the armed services being placed in situations of danger. [9812]

  Dr. Reid
  There are currently no plans to change the rules governing the deployment of under-18-year-olds in the armed forces in situations of danger, although our policies remain under constant review.

  Army Foundation College
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy on the Army Foundation College. [9808]

  Dr. Reid
  The Army Foundation College is part of the manning of the army strategy, which aims to return the Army to full manning by 2002. The college will provide young people aged between 16 and 17 destined for the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery and the infantry, with vocational, adventurous leadership and basic military training and will also give them a good grounding in six NCVQ key skills. On graduation from the college, they will go on to trade training before joining the Field Army. The intention is that the college will be funded through the private finance initiative. Until this process is complete, we cannot therefore be certain of the college's location, although the successful contractor will be offered the site of the former Apprentices' college in Harrogate.

  West Indies Guard Ship
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Department for International Development concerning the West Indies guard ship. [10104]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department has received no representation from the Department for International Development concerning the West Indies gaurd ship.

  Defence Review
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of all the submissions made to his Department on the strategic defence review. [9985]

  Dr. Reid
  We have received a large number of inputs from outside bodies and individuals. These submissions are the property of the authors and the Department may not circulate them outside Government without the authors' consent. Our intention is to seek that consent and to place in the Library of the House copies of these inputs where consent has been given.

  Reservist Aircrew
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further arrangements have been made for the wider employment of reservist aircrew in the Royal Air Force. [10387]

  Dr. Reid
  I am pleased to announce that, following the success of trials using reservist aircrew to augment regular personnel on the Hercules aircraft and Wessex helicopter, a trial is to be conducted between 1 October 1997 and 30 September 1998 to evaluate the feasibility of recruiting and training volunteer reservist aircrew for employment on the Tornado F3 aircraft. Trials involving other aircraft types may follow next year.

SCOTLAND

  Hunting
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from(a) supporters and (b) opponents of hunting on the subject of hunting on Forestry Commission land; and if he will list them. [8894]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Ministers and the Forestry Commission have received thousands of representations on this matter in recent years, both from supporters and opponents of hunting. Listing these representations could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants there are on each pay band in his Department. [8939]

  Mr. Dewar
  A pay and grading review is currently underway in The Scottish Office and its executive agencies other than the Scottish Prison Service, but has not been completed. Staffing figures are therefore shown on the basis of standard civil service grades in the table.

  The Scottish Office and its executive agencies (excluding SPS) at 1 April 1997

  Grade equivalent

  Full-time equivalent

  Senior civil service

  151.4

  Grade 6

  151.2

  Grade 7

  396.5

  Senior executive officer

  350.1

  Higher executive officer

  733.6

  Executive officer

  877.8

  532

  The Scottish Office and its
  executive agencies (excluding SPS) at 1 April 1997

  Grade equivalent

  Full-time equivalent

  Administrative officer

  990.6

  Administrative assistant

  997.8

  Industrial

  305.0

  Total

  4,954.0

  As a pay and grading review has taken place in the Scottish Prison Service it is possible to provide a breakdown by pay band, although numbers are available on a headcount rather than an FTE basis. The information is set out in the table.

  The Scottish Prison Service at 1 April 1997

  Band

  Pay range

  Headcount

  Senior civil servants

  I

  £33,700–£52,100

  6

  H

  £28,100–£43,400

  6

  G

  £23,500–£35,750

  58

  F

  £17,900–£30,650

  296

  E

  £14,300–£25,550

  563

  D

  £11,450–£21,450

  2,261

  C

  £9,300–£16,350

  1,194

  B

  £7,350–£11,450

  200

  A

  £6,150–£9,600

  40

  Total

  4,654

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of employees in his private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8937]

  Mr. Dewar
  At 1 July 1997 none of the 46 staff employed in the Scottish Office ministerial private offices was of Asian or Afro-Caribbean origin.

  Children (Scotland) Act 1995
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate was made by the reporters service of the additional resources required to administer the Children (Scotland) Act 1995; and what additional resources have been provided. [9616]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration's estimate to implement its responsibilities under the 1995 Act was for an additional £804,000. This additional requirement was taken into account along with other factors in setting the administration's baseline of £10,300,000, an increase of £200,000 over the previous year's provision.

  Capital Receipts Initiative
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the consultation process which will take place on the distribution of funds under the capital receipts initiative. [9956]

  Mr. Chisholm
  My right hon. Friend announced on 3 July that he would wish to discuss with local government and Scottish Homes how we might deploy
  533
  the additional £12.5 million made available for housing investment in Scotland this year and the additional £43.7 million made available next year. He indicated that he was in favour of using the resources to support welfare to work schemes directed at improving the energy efficiency of our housing stock, and to take forward our policy of new housing partnerships. The Department is consulting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Scottish Homes accordingly and a further announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Scottish Arts Council Inquiry
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 321, (1) if he will identify the report produced at the conclusion of the Scottish Arts Council inquiry into the production assisted by the Scottish film production fund; who wrote it; if copies will be publicly available; and what is its projected date of publication; [9960]

  (2) when the Scottish Arts Council inquiry into productions assisted by the Scottish film production fund was instituted; what was the total cost of producing the inquiry's report; and if he will indicate those individuals and bodies which have had sight of the report prior to publication.

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Arts Council commissioned Morgan Harris Burrows in February 1997 to report on the handling of national lottery film-related applications in Scotland. The cost of producing the report was £12,867. The report has not been published, but is available on request from the Scottish Arts Council. Arrangements are being made to place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10187]

  Mr. Dewar
  The following major departmental policy reviews are in progress:

  Purpose of review

  Review of transport policy

  The purpose of this review is to enable a White Paper setting out our proposals for an integrated transport policy to be published early next year.

  Review of the Scottish trunk roads programme

  The purpose of this review is to enable decisions to be taken on the future roads programme which complement our overall approach on transport policy. It is expected to be completed by summer 1998.

  Strategic review of Scottish Enterprise and the Local Enterprise Companies

  The purpose of the review is for SE, in consultation with the department, to examine their strategic objectives with a view to improving the effectiveness, responsiveness and the accountability of the enterprise network in Scotland. The review is expected to be completed during the course of the Summer.

  534

  Purpose of review

  Water authorities review

  The purpose of the review is to consider the steps which might be taken to strengthen local democratic control of the three Scottish water authorities. It is expected to be completed in November.

  Review of planning policy for opencast coal mining in Scotland

  The purpose of this review is to follow up the 10-point plan for opencasting, published in April 1997. Consultation on the issues will commence shortly with a view to completion of the review by the autumn.

  Housing reviews

  There are to be two reviews relating to housing. The first is to examine the way in which Scottish Homes supports social rented housing; the second is to review the various home ownership schemes administered by Scottish Homes. The reviews are expected to be completed by spring 1998.

  Best value regime in local government

  The purpose of the review by the joint Scottish Office/Convention of Scottish Local Authorities task force is to develop the essential elements of the new best value arrangements. The task force's first draft report was presented to the Secretary of State and COSLA on 4 July and councils will be required to assess by Autumn how far they meet the essential elements; if they wish to apply for further exemption from compulsory competitive tendering.

  Review of development planning in Scotland

  The purpose of this review is to identify aspects of the present development plan procedures which prevent effective and efficient preparation and processing of plans, and changes which could be introduced to minimise their effect. The review is due to be completed by the end of 1997.

  Review of further education colleges' funding methodology

  The purpose is to review the current arrangements for the distribution of Government grant funding for further education colleges in Scotland to determine that these efficiently and effectively support and deliver the objectives for the sector set out by Ministers and reflect appropriate funding principles; and to identify the scope for improvement in consultation with the sector. The review is presently expected to be completed in September.

  Scottish Community Education Council
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the forthcoming policy and financial review of the Scottish Community Education Council. [10344]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department will conduct a review of the Scottish Community Education Council during 1997 under the programme of five yearly non-departmental public body reviews. The review will examine the status and functions of the Scottish Community Education Council in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance.

  The first stage of the review will take the form of a "prior options" study. This will assess the extent to which the functions that the Scottish Community Education

  535
  Council performs are necessary for the achievement of the Government's policies, and whether there is scope for privatising, contracting out or transferring all, or part of its functions to another body. The results of the prior options study will inform a detailed review of the Council's policy and financial management systems.

  The review will also examine the roles of other organisations involved in the development of community education in Scotland and the scope for co-ordination of their activities with those of the Council to ensure maximum value for money from the central government resources available for community education in Scotland.

  This study will commence in the late summer. In order to help ensure that all options are considered fully, comments from interested parties will be welcome. Comments should be sent by 12 September 1997 to:

  Mrs. P. A. Morrison Head of the Community Education Branch

  Type of birth

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  19961

  Twins:

  2 live

  711

  682

  790

  751

  762

  780

  775

  1 live, 1 stillbirth

  15

  22

  11

  25

  13

  31

  22

  2 stillbirth

  5

  5

  6

  4

  3

  5

  3

  Triplets:

  3 live

  14

  18

  15

  10

  16

  27

  27

  2 live, 1 stillbirth

  2

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1 live, 2 stillbirth

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Quadruplets:

  4 live

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3 live, 1 stillbirth

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Quintuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Number of maternities

  65,556

  66,630

  65,307

  62,946

  61,224

  59,271

  58,831

  1Provisional

  Information on the number of multiple births in Scotland attributed to assisted conception is not available. The tables show, on a UK basis, the information on pregnancies and births following assisted conceptions provided by the annual reports of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Pregnancies conceived from 1990 to 1994 through IVF or Donor insemination

  Singleton

  Twin

  Triplet

  Quad or greater

  IVF clinical pregnancies (includes frozen embryo transfer and ISCI)

  19901

  1,404

  411

  69

  1

  19912

  1,491

  503

  75

  1

  1992

  2,109

  709

  118

  0

  1993

  2,807

  847

  148

  1

  1994

  3,064

  1,009

  197

  3

  1995

  To be published in 1997 annual report (October 1997)

  Notes:

  1Data collected by OPCS for the Interim Licensing Authority.

  2 Data for 1 January 1991 to 31 July 1991 collected by OPCS 1 August 1991 to 31 December 1991 collected by the HFEA.
  536
  The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  Area 2A West

  Victoria Quay

  Edinburgh

  EH6 6QQ.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in Scotland in each year since 1990; how many maternities there were in each year; and how many multiple births in each category were conceived as a result of (i) in-vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception. [8177]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: The information is as follows:

  Pregnancies conceived from 1990 to 1994 through IVF or Donor insemination

  Singleton

  Twin

  Triplet

  Quad or greater

  IVF Live births events (includes frozen embryo transfer and ICSI)

  1990

  No figures available

  1991

  No figures available

  1992

  1,592

  627

  99

  0

  1993

  2,164

  790

  134

  1

  1994

  2,376

  929

  170

  2

  1995

  To be published in 1997 annual report (October 1997)

  Pregnancies conceived from 1990 to 1994 through IVF or Donor insemination

  Singleton

  Twin

  Triplet

  Quad or greater

  Donor insemination clinical pregnancies (includes GIFT with donor sperm)

  1990

  No data available

  19911

  545

  31

  3

  0

  1992

  1,527

  93

  10

  1

  1993

  1,678

  123

  218

  537

  Pregnancies conceived from 1990 to 1994 through IVF or Donor insemination

  Singleton

  Twin

  Triplet

  Quad or greater

  1994

  1,838

  110

  17

  1

  1995

  To be published in 1997 annual report (October 1997)

  Notes:

  1Data available from 1 August 1991 to 31 December 1991 only. Prior to 1 August 1991 data was collected by the OPCS and did not include Donor Insemination data.

  2Includes three clinical pregnancies/live birth events which were reported as "triplet or greater".

  Pregnancies conceived from 1990 to 1994 through IVF or Donor insemination

  Singleton

  Twin

  Triplet

  Quad or greater

  Donor insemination live birth events (includes GIFT with donor sperm)

  1990

  No figures available

  1991

  No figures available

  1992

  1,212

  83

  10

  1

  1993

  1,387

  112

  118

  1994

  1,549

  105

  16

  1

  1995

  To be published in 1997 annual report (October 1997)

  Note:

  1 Includes three clinical pregnancies/live birth events which were reported as "triplet or greater".

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children with statements of special educational needs were permanently excluded from schools in Scotland in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what each figure was as a proportion of the total number of children permanently excluded from schools. [8724]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: Information on the number of pupils with statements of special educational needs who were permanently excluded from school is not held centrally.

  Information on the total number of pupils permanently excluded from school is available for 1994–95 but was not collected in prior years. The information for 1994–95, consistent with that set out in the report on attendance and absence in Scottish schools, 1994–95 published by the audit unit of HM inspectors of schools, is set out in the table.

  Number of pupils permanently excluded from schools in 1994–95

  Primary pupils

  47

  Secondary pupils

  296

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the policy of his Department on the timely payment of debts; and what is his Department's record on the payment of debts in the current financial year. [9525]
  538
  Mr. Chisolm
  [holding answer Friday 18 July 1997]: All Departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is later, where no such terms exist. Information on payment performance for the current financial year could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the autumn.

  HIV-AIDS
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new HIV infections there have been among(a) intravenous drug users, (b) heterosexuals and (c) homosexuals in the age groups (1) 16 to 25, (2) 26 to 35, (3) 36 to 45, (4) 46 to 55 and (5) over 55s by health authority (i) each year since 1985 and (ii) in total; if he will list the year on year change in each group in percentage terms; and if he will make a statement about the Government's targeting of HIV-AIDS prevention materials. [9221]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer Monday 21 July 1997]: Information about diagnosed HIV infections in Scotland is held in the transmission categories and age groups shown in table 1. Individuals often do not seek testing unless they believe themselves to be at risk or develop symptoms and hence reported HIV infections underestimate the true number of cases. In addition, these figures may be subject to under-reporting.

  The figures are given on an all-Scotland basis because presenting data by health boards may threaten confidentiality in low prevalence areas. Table 2 shows the year on year change in each group in percentage terms.

  The Government's targeting of HIV-AIDS prevention materials is in line with the UK health Departments' Strategy, "HIV and AIDS Health Promotion: An Evolving Strategy", November 1995. This emphasised the need for better targeting of vulnerable groups such as gay men, as well as the need to inform the general population about the continuing potential risks from HIV.

  In Scotland, recent data indicate that new infections among gay men remain the highest of all transmission categories. In line with the strategy, The Scottish Office Department of Health is funding a project involving prevention work for gay men in Scotland. In addition to work aimed at the general population, The Health Education Authority carry out a limited amount of prevention work UK-wide targeted at gay and bisexual men. HIV-AIDS is one of the priority areas for the Health Education Board for Scotland; and its work at national level is complemented by the local activities of health boards.
  539

  Table 1: HIV reports, Scotland by transmission category, age group at report, and year of report—1985 to 1996

  Transmission category

  Age group

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Injecting drug use

  0–4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15–24

  88

  143

  106

  31

  32

  18

  25–34

  60

  80

  57

  30

  14

  13

  35–44

  8

  12

  8

  5

  4

  4

  45–54

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  55+

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Not known

  5

  6

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  161

  241

  175

  67

  50

  35

  Sexual intercourse between men and women

  0–14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15–24

  1

  4

  8

  5

  9

  15

  25–34

  0

  15

  10

  18

  10

  14

  35–44

  0

  0

  5

  7

  5

  7

  45–54

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  55+

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Not Known

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  1

  20

  24

  31

  26

  40

  Sexual intercourse between men

  0–14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15–24

  19

  23

  19

  14

  7

  7

  25–34

  33

  31

  26

  22

  24

  26

  35–44

  14

  11

  16

  8

  10

  20

  45–54

  6

  6

  4

  3

  5

  3

  55+

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1

  Not known

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  74

  74

  67

  47

  48

  57

  Other (e.g. blood transfusion, mother to child, undetermined)

  0–14

  15

  3

  7

  0

  3

  3

  15–24

  5

  4

  1

  2

  2

  0

  25–34

  4

  4

  2

  3

  2

  5

  35–44

  5

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  45–54

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  55+

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Not known

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  32

  15

  14

  6

  10

  8

  Total

  0–14

  15

  3

  7

  0

  3

  3

  15–24

  113

  174

  134

  52

  50

  40

  25–34

  97

  130

  95

  73

  50

  58

  35–44

  27

  24

  30

  21

  21

  31

  45–54

  7

  7

  5

  3

  7

  5

  55+

  2

  2

  3

  1

  3

  3

  Not known

  7

  10

  6

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  268

  350

  280

  151

  134

  140

  Transmission category

  Age group

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Totals 1985–96

  Injecting drug use

  0–14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15–24

  12

  14

  16

  2

  3

  1

  466

  25–34

  31

  19

  34

  14

  18

  21

  391

  35–44

  6

  6

  5

  9

  6

  5

  78

  45–54

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  6

  55+

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Not known

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  Total

  30

  39

  56

  26

  27

  307

  957

  Sexual intercourse between men and women

  0–14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15–24

  8

  13

  7

  7

  0

  8

  85

  25–34

  19

  23

  24

  25

  22

  21

  201

  35–44

  8

  4

  6

  2

  25

  14

  83

  45–54

  4

  4

  3

  2

  7

  4

  28

  55+

  3

  2

  1

  3

  3

  1

  16

  Not known

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  42

  46

  41

  39

  57

  48

  415

  540 541

  Transmission category

  Age group

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Totals 1985–96

  Sexual intercourse between men

  0–14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15–24

  10

  3

  10

  8

  5

  12

  137

  25–34

  23

  29

  38

  37

  40

  31

  360

  35–44

  19

  18

  20

  25

  28

  26

  215

  45–54

  9

  7

  5

  8

  6

  12

  74

  55+

  3

  4

  1

  3

  1

  3

  21

  Not known

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Total

  64

  61

  74

  81

  80

  84

  811

  Other(e.g. blood transfusion, mother to child, undermined)

  0–14

  6

  0

  3

  2

  4

  0

  46

  15–24

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  18

  25–34

  0

  2

  0

  1

  3

  5

  31

  35–44

  1

  1

  2

  0

  2

  2

  18

  45–54

  2

  0

  1

  2

  2

  1

  11

  55+

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  6

  Not known

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Total

  9

  4

  6

  7

  13

  9

  133

  Total

  0–14

  6

  0

  3

  2

  4

  0

  46

  15–24

  30

  31

  33

  18

  10

  21

  706

  25–34

  73

  73

  96

  77

  83

  78

  983

  35–44

  34

  29

  33

  36

  61

  47

  394

  45–54

  16

  11

  10

  13

  15

  20

  119

  55+

  6

  6

  2

  7

  4

  5

  44

  Not known

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  24

  Total

  165

  150

  177

  153

  177

  171

  2,316

  Table 2: Percentage change from previous year

  Transmission category

  Age group

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Injecting drug use

  0–14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15–24

  5

  63

  -26

  -71

  3

  -44

  25–34

  107

  33

  -29

  -47

  -53

  -7

  35–44

  60

  50

  -33

  -38

  -20

  0

  45–54

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55+

  —

  —

  —

  -100

  —

  —

  Not known

  67

  20

  -50

  -67

  -100

  —

  Total

  33

  50

  -27

  -62

  -25

  -30

  Sexual intercourse between men and women

  0–14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15–24

  -50

  300

  100

  -38

  80

  67

  25–34

  -100

  —

  -33

  80

  -44

  40

  35–44

  —

  —

  —

  40

  -29

  40

  45–54

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  55+

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -100

  —

  Not known

  —

  —

  0

  100

  —

  —

  Total

  -67

  1,900

  20

  29

  -16

  54

  Sexual intercourse between men

  0–14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15–24

  533

  21

  -17

  -26

  -50

  0

  25–34

  560

  -6

  -16

  -15

  9

  8

  35–44

  1,300

  -21

  45

  -50

  25

  100

  45–54

  500

  0

  -33

  -25

  67

  -40

  55+

  —

  0

  0

  -100

  —

  -50

  Not known

  —

  100

  -50

  -100

  —

  —

  Total

  640

  0

  -9

  -30

  2

  19

  Other (e.g. blood transfusion, mother to child, undetermined)

  0–14

  400

  -80

  133

  -100

  —

  0

  15–24

  67

  -20

  -75

  100

  0

  -100

  25–34

  -43

  0

  -50

  50

  -33

  150

  35–44

  -58

  -80

  0

  0

  100

  -100

  45–54

  -67

  0

  0

  -100

  —

  —

  55+

  —

  0

  0

  -100

  —

  -100

  Not known

  —

  0

  0

  -100

  —

  —

  Total

  14

  -53

  -7

  -57

  67

  -20

  542 543

  Table 2:Percentage change from previous year

  Transmission category

  Age group

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Total

  0–14

  400

  -80

  133

  -100

  —

  0

  15–24

  23

  54

  -23

  -61

  -4

  -20

  25–34

  131

  34

  -27

  -23

  -32

  16

  35–44

  50

  -11

  25

  -30

  0

  48

  45–54

  75

  0

  -29

  -40

  133

  -29

  55+

  —

  0

  50

  -67

  200

  0

  Nor known

  133

  43

  -40

  -83

  -100

  —

  Total

  65

  31

  -28

  -46

  -11

  4

  Note:

  A dash denotes that there were no cases reported during the previous year.

  Source:

  Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health (as at 30 June 1997).

  Transmission category

  Age group

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Injecting drug use

  0–14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15–24

  -33

  17

  14

  -88

  50

  -67

  25–34

  138

  -39

  -79

  -59

  29

  17

  34–44

  50

  0

  -17

  80

  -33

  -17

  45–54

  —

  -100

  —

  0

  -100

  —

  55+

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Not known

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  43

  -22

  44

  -54

  4

  11

  Sexual intercourse between men and women

  0–14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15–24

  -47

  63

  -48

  0

  -100

  —

  25–34

  36

  21

  4

  4

  -12

  -5

  35–44

  14

  -50

  50

  -67

  1,150

  -44

  45–54

  100

  0

  -25

  -33

  250

  -43

  55+

  50

  -33

  -50

  200

  0

  -67

  Not known

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5

  10

  -11

  -5

  46

  -16

  Sexual intercourse between men

  0–14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15–24

  43

  -70

  233

  -20

  -38

  140

  25–34

  -12

  26

  31

  -3

  8

  -23

  35–44

  -5

  -5

  11

  25

  12

  -7

  45–54

  200

  -22

  -29

  60

  -25

  100

  55+

  200

  33

  -75

  200

  -67

  200

  Not known

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  12

  -5

  21

  9

  -1

  5

  Other (e.g. blood transfusion, mother to child, undetermined)

  0–14

  100

  -100

  —

  -33

  100

  -100

  15–24

  —

  —

  -100

  —

  100

  -100

  25–34

  -100

  —

  -100

  —

  200

  67

  35–44

  —

  0

  100

  -100

  —

  0

  45–54

  —

  -100

  —

  100

  0

  -50

  55+

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -100

  —

  Not known

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  13

  -56

  50

  17

  86

  -31

  Total

  0–14

  100

  -100

  —

  -33

  100

  -100

  15–24

  -25

  3

  6

  -45

  -44

  110

  25–34

  20

  0

  32

  -20

  8

  -6

  35–44

  10

  -15

  14

  9

  69

  -23

  45–54

  220

  -31

  -9

  30

  15

  33

  55+

  100

  0

  -67

  250

  -43

  25

  Not known

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  18

  -9

  18

  -14

  16

  -3

  Note:

  A dash denotes that there were no cases reported during the previous year.

  Source:

  Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health (as at 30 June 1997).
  544

  Sustainably Produced Timber
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department is taking to encourage the use of timber from sustainably managed forests. [9536]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the recent UN General Assembly special session that the Government are preparing a new forest standard to provide a benchmark for the management of our forests. The Forestry Commission will monitor achievement against that standard. This initiative will help assure consumers that timber grown in Britain comes from sustainably managed forests. In addition, we are working to promote sustainable forestry abroad through our development assistance programme.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Order Offences (Londonderry)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many illegal republican parades and demonstrations her Department assesses to have taken place in Londonderry city during the last year; and how many persons have been charged with public order offences as a consequence. [4062]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the past year, there was one illegal Republican parade in Londonderry city. To date, no persons have been charged with public order offences.

  Killyleagh Community Hall
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates the central community relations unit received the outline design for the Killyleagh community hall from Down district council; on what dates the CCRU decided to appoint independent consultants to prepare an economic appraisal of the project; when the consultants were advised of their appointments by the CCRU; and when the CCRU received the economic appraisals from the consultants. [4785]

  Mr. Worthington
  The central community relations unit received the outline design for Killyleagh community hall on 21 February 1996; CCRU decided to appoint independent consultants to assess the proposal as a stand-alone project on 16 December 1996; the consultants were given written confirmation of their appointment on 21 March 1997; and the economic appraisal was received on 17 June 1997.

  This application was unusual as a separate application for a capital project with a cross community dimension in the same area was also received in 1996. It was important to consider the relationship between both projects and to avoid duplication. Consequent on the economic appraisal, CCRU will recommend grant aid for the community hall and has informed Down district council accordingly.

  Absent Voting Papers
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the number of absent voting papers issued in(a) each parliamentary constituency and (b) in Northern Ireland for the (i) 1992
  546
  and (ii) 1997 elections, and the percentage difference between 1992 and 1997 for each constituency; and if she will make a statement. [7722]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The information is as follows:

  1992 and 1997 Northern Ireland general election: absent voting

  Parliamentary constituency

  Absent voting

  Percentage difference

  1992

  1997

  North Down

  1,048

  1,052

  0.40

  Strangford

  938

  1,271

  35.50

  South Down

  5,359

  3,504

  34.61

  Lagan Valley

  1,104

  1,443

  30.71

  Upper Bann

  1,854

  1,759

  -5.12

  Newry and Armagh

  3,580

  3,960

  10.61

  Fermanagh and South

  Tyrone

  5,847

  5,996

  2.55

  Mid-Ulster

  3,638

  5,047

  38.73

  Foyle

  1,531

  1,460

  -4.64

  East Londonderry

  2,409

  2,128

  -11.66

  North Antrim

  1,032

  1,467

  42.15

  East Antrim

  1,002

  793

  -20.86

  South Antrim

  962

  884

  -8.11

  Belfast north

  615

  847

  37.72

  Belfast east

  638

  912

  42.93

  Belfast south

  856

  886

  3.50

  Belfast west

  757

  1,104

  45.84

  West Tyrone

  —

  4,372

  —

  Totals

  33,170

  38,885

  17.23

  These figures show a significant rise in the numbers of absent votes in Northern Ireland over the last two general elections. Due to boundary changes which increased the number of Northern Ireland constituencies by one in 1995, there is no strict comparison between the two elections.

  However, in just under a third of Northern Ireland parliamentary constituencies the number of absent votes issued was greater in 1992 than at the 1997 general election. In those constituencies which did see an increase in the absent votes issued, in a quarter of these cases the percentage increase was less than 5 per cent. It is the case that in just under half of the 17 constituencies there has been an increase of more than 30 per cent. in the numbers of absent votes issued.

  The Government have made it clear that they are concerned at the increase in the numbers of absent votes issued at the last election, and that will study with interest the results of the study begun by the chief electoral officers into all absent vote applications in Northern Ireland for the last three elections.

  Orange March, Garvaghy Road
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the decision was taken to allow the Orange Order march down the Garvaghy road on 5 July; and what criteria were used in coming to that decision. [8481]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 18 July 1997, Official Report, column 338.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials have refused to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings with hon. Members to discuss matters relating to interests registered by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8113]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The first report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) made it clear that, when Members are meeting Ministers or others on topics in which they have an interest, the onus is on the Member to declare that interest, not the Minister to knowparagraph 63 of Cm 2850). It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, among their other duties, to vet requests for meetings against the Register of Members' Interests.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department refuse requests from hon. Members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8110]

  Dr. Cunningham
  The first report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Cm 2850 recognised the value of enabling Members to retain interests outside the House, provided that these were properly declared, both in the Register of Members' Interests and on other occasions. Subject to these requirements, and to the rules of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, Members are free to seek meetings with Ministers and officials, who will consider such requests alongside the many other approaches from individuals and organisations concerned to press their own interests or those of others.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings; [8111]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8112]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in his reply to my hon. Friend for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 2 June 1997,Official Report, column 99, Ministers and officials in my Department receive deputations from many groups which are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients, which Ministers and officials take due care to consider within the wider public and Government policy. As it is not practicable to distinguish particular groups as lobbyists, my Department cannot and does not keep a register of such meetings.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations govern the transportation of poultry between farms and slaughterhouses. [8663]

  Mr. Morley
  Welfare provisions for the transport of poultry, and other animals, are contained in the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the compliance of transporters with laws protecting animals during international transit. [8660]

  Mr. Morley
  It has been stated in a European Commission report, and is widely acknowledged, that transporters commonly flout the rules on welfare in transit when transporting livestock over long distances on the continent. The Department has undertaken no research on this, but has arrangements in place with certain other member states to undertake spot checks on compliance with route plans declared in advance when animals are sent from Great Britain. These arrangements will continue, in support of the activities of local authorities in pursuit of their statutory responsibility to enforce the tougher controls we have now introduced in the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) inquiries and (b) applications have been received by his Department for licences for exporting animals under the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1957; and how many licences have been granted. [8677]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no requirement in the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 for exports of animals to be licensed. However, the order does require that, from 1 October 1997, anyone transporting cattle, sheep, pigs, goats or horses on a journey over eight hours must have a specific authorisation to engage in this activity. The process of receiving and processing applications for these authorisations is at an early stage: we have received 67 applications to date.

  Broiler Chickens
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to restrict the selective breeding for rapid growth of broiler chickens. [8656]

  Mr. Morley
  Selective breeding for rapid growth of broiler chickens is not, of itself, a cause for concern. It is, however, important to consider the implications for the welfare of the birds. An independent review by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which will cover all aspects of the broiler breeding industry including selection procedures, is currently under way. I look forward to receiving the council's recommendations as to the direction of any future controls.

  Hunting (Forestry Commission Land)
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the review of hunting on
  549
  Forestry Commission land will be completed; what is the composition of the body undertaking it; and what its terms of reference are. [8729]

  Mr. Morley
  The review of hunting on Forestry Commission land is an internal review which is being carried out by the forestry commissioners and commission officials as a normal part of their duties. The commissioners aim to complete their review later this summer.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Forestry Commission regarding the review of hunting with hounds on forestry commission land. [8891]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: The forestry commissioners are reviewing their policy on hunting with hounds on commission land, and will advise us of their conclusions in due course.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many and what percentage of employees in his private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8967]

  Mr. Morley
  Of the individuals working in the Minister's Private Office, one is of Asian origin—16.66 per cent. of staff—and two—33.3 per cent. of staff are of Afro-Caribbean origin.

  Jules Hurry
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigation was carried out into the political activities of the civil servant Jules Hurry. [9015]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has recently concluded a full investigation under its disciplinary procedures. It is long-established Government practice that the results of such investigations are not made public.

  Sheep Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking (a) to ensure that sheep exported from the United Kingdom on 5 July and currently held at two Italian abattoirs whilst a dispute about their health certification is resolved are properly cared for and (b) to resolve that dispute; and if he will make a statement. [9410]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for the welfare of the exported sheep now rests with the Italian authorities We have pressed them to fulfil this responsibility, and understand that the Italian authorities are regularly checking the animals and the conditions in which they are being kept. We have made it clear to the Italian authorities that the certification that they are demanding has no basis in Community law and that we cannot provide it. We have also drawn the position to the attention of the European Commission. As we have stressed to the Italian authorities, it is vital, in the absence of an immediate solution to this problem, that what is to happen to the sheep is quickly resolved.

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how often, since 1992, his Department has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9513]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1992, neither the core Department nor its agencies have used age restrictions in any recruitment advertisements.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive Professor Krebs's report on bovine tuberculosis; what compensation he intends to make to farmers for damage suffered as a result of the current curtailment of badger removal operations; and if he will make a statement. [9464]

  Mr. Rooker
  Professor Krebs's report is expected later this year. Compensation is already paid to farmers for animals compulsorily slaughtered as reactors to the tuberculin test or as contacts.

  Flax
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on his policy towards flax sowing, with special reference to the Offham marshes site of special scientific interest near Lewes; [9518]

  (2) what plans he has to amend the fibre flax regime to prevent previously uncultivated land which is ploughed from qualifying for payments under the regime; and if he will make a statement. [9520]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The Government consider that fibre flax is a useful alternative crop, whose production we should in general like to encourage. A number of changes have recently been made to the EU regime which should ensure that flax is grown on suitable land, appropriately cultivated and processed for a definite end use.

  However, in view of recent concern, we are looking at a range of options specifically to address the problem of flax cultivation on valuable wildlife sites.

  As regards the Offham marshes site of special scientific interest, I understand that ploughing and cultivation of crops is considered to be an acceptable operation, provided certain safeguards are observed.

  Honey
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the proposal for a European Council Regulation to improve the production and marketing of honey (Com 96/0596). [9329]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The Commission proposal for a regulation concerning the production and marketing of honey was adopted at the Council of Ministers meeting of 23 to 25 June. I welcome the regulation, which mainly aims to assist the beekeeping sector in dealing with the burden of the bee disease varroa. We are currently assessing how the UK might

  551
  make the best use of the expenditure reimbursement provisions of the regulation and will consult the industry and others about it.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to ensure that the reduction in abattoir contracts does not increase the backlog of cattle awaiting slaughter. [9544]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: The indicative throughputs associated with the new abattoir contracts are based on regional forecasts of animals expected to enter the scheme with a sufficient margin to allow for seasonal fluctuations.

  The current bottleneck at abattoirs has risen because producers are seeking to bring forward their culling plans before changes to the over-30-months scheme are introduced on 4 August. For the two weeks leading up to these changes, the indicative throughputs will be increased substantially to assist producers.

  In addition, the Intervention Board has issued instructions to scheme abattoirs to ensure, as far as possible, that priority is given to those producers whose animals were already booked into the scheme, and that the available capacity is otherwise distributed as equitably as possible.

  Truro Regional Service Centre Office
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the estimated performance improvements from the closure of the Truro office of the regional service centre. [9663]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: We expect to deliver high-quality services at a saving of some £100,000 a year to the taxpayer.

  BSE
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which European Union member states currently face infringement proceedings in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy; what assessment his Department has made as to the health risks that result from such countries to consumers in the United Kingdom; if his Department has made representations for an export ban on beef products from those countries; and if he will make a statement. [10202]

  Mr. Rooker
  At the Standing Veterinary Committee on 3 July, the EU Commission's intention to take infraction proceedings against 10 member states for various reasons related to the EU measures in place in relation to BSE, was discussed. Action was to be taken against France, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Finland and Italy.

  These measures were to be taken as a result of the report of Commission inspections which were shown by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee at its meeting on 23 May. On the basis of this, SEAC issued advice to Government which was published on 5 June and which resulted in the reply the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to the House on that day, Official Report, columns 227–28. This reply made it clear that the
  552
  Government proposed to extend the controls on beef from animals slaughtered in the UK to material once imported into the UK. We are not banning imports as such. The Agriculture Council on 22 to 23 July will be deciding on the introduction of EU-wide controls on cattle, sheep and goat offals.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by port of registration the number of pressure stock licensed to be sold outside the United Kingdom. [10180]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the UK's restrictive licensing arrangements for fishing vessels, no new licences are issued. Licences may be transferred from one UK registered fishing vessel to another at the discretion of Ministers. We have no information readily available about the number of such transfers which may take place in the future. However, we estimate that currently there are some 160 UK-registered and licensed fishing vessels which have significant foreign interests in their ownership.

  Cod Quotas
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much cohesion cod is allotted annually to each European Union state; what criteria determine such allocations; and if he will make a statement. [10211]

  Mr. Morley
  This quota to fish cod in Norwegian waters north of 62N, granted to the European Union by Norway as part of the European Economic Area agreement, is allocated to the four cohesion countries on the basis of fixed allocation keys. The shares, and quantities received in 1997 are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Tonnes

  Greece

  5

  550

  Ireland

  5

  550

  Portugal

  45

  4,950

  Spain

  45

  4,950

  Beef Exports
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risks to health posed by British beef exported in breach of the beef export ban. [10013]

  Mr. Rooker
  Health and identification marks have been partly or wholly removed from beef which has been seized in another country on suspicion that it has been illegally exported from the UK. Without those marks, it is not possible to confirm either that it met hygiene standards at the time of slaughter or its origin. Standards for the production of beef in the UK are, nevertheless, as high as anywhere in Europe. There are stringent safeguards to ensure that carcases from BSE suspects cannot enter the human food chain and UK controls to prevent specified bovine material from entering the human food chain are the toughest in Europe.

  Hormones
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the World Trade Organisation hormone panel conclusions; and if he will make a statement. [10203]

  Mr. Rooker
  The disputes panel has upheld complaints by the US and Canada about the EU's ban on meat from animals treated with growth promoting hormones, finding it to be inconsistent with the World Trade Organisation agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The reports cannot be adopted by the WTO until the appeals process has been completed; we expect this will not be before the autumn at the earliest.

PRIME MINISTER

  Law Agent's Letter
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has sent to the letter of 14 July of the law agent, George More, of Edinburgh, relating to the suffering of the Libyan people. [9829]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, I have not yet received this letter.

  House of Commons (Radio Broadcasts)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to consult leaders of other parties represented in the House over the future radio reporting of the House; and if he will make a statement. [9832]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: None; in all matters concerning the editorial content and scheduling of programming, responsibility rests with the BBC itself. I am sure, however, that the BBC will take into account the strong views which have been expressed on the matter by Madam Speaker and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

  Offshore Trusts
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to prohibit the holding of shares in offshore trusts by Ministers. [9786]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" is currently being reviewed. Until the review is complete, I have asked my ministerial colleagues to abide by the general principles contained in the 1992 version, which has been published.

  Honours
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff are employed in preparation and scrutiny of applications for honours; and what was the annual cost of(a) preparation of the honours list and (b) the Political honours scrutiny committee, in the latest year for which figures are available. [9412]

  The Prime Minister
  The ceremonial branch of the Cabinet Office which handles all honours applications and related matters, including public nominations, comprises 18 people and has an annual budget of £368,000. The wider cost of operating the honours system, including estimates of small parts of the work of many people at 554
  home and overseas, could not be provided other than at disproportionate cost. Members of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee receive no remuneration.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for changes in the procedures for the allocation and scrutiny of honours. [9411]

  The Prime Minister
  I plan to continue recommending bi-annual honours lists, for which the sole criterion will be quality of service in a wide range of areas of national life. I have asked that those scrutinising nominations should give weight to achievements in areas of service identified by the Government as priorities for improvement.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names of the members of the Political Honours scrutiny committee and the number of occasions on which it met in each of the last five years. [9413]

  The Prime Minister
  The members of the political honours scrutiny committee are Lord Pym MC DL, chairman, the Lord Cledwyn of Penhors CH and the Lord Thomson of Monifieth KT. The number of meetings to scrutinise those proposed on account of their political services, including working life peers, were as follows:

  1993: 4

  1994: 3

  1995: 4

  1996: 4

  1997: 2 (to date)

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 16 July,Official Report, columns 387–88, in reference to the letter from Alain Dejammet, Stephen Gomersall and Bill Richardson, permanent representatives of France, the United Kingdom and the USA, to the President of the Security Council, what recent review of the evidence relating to the Lockerbie case has been conducted by the UN Security Council. [9830]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: None. It is not the Security Council's job to do so. The evidence is held by the national investigating and prosecuting authorities and is not in the public domain.

  Political Appointments
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister how many political advisers or their political appointees have been appointed since 1 May, who are not paid from public funds; if he will name them and their departments; if each such appointment has been approved by him; by whom they are paid; whether they are in all other respects subject to the same rules of employment as political advisers paid from public funds; and if he will list the precedents for such appointments. [2838]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 June 1997]: The appointment of unpaid political advisers is subject to the same rules as were followed by the previous Administration. Unpaid advisers are personal appointments by the Minister concerned and carry no remuneration or reimbursement from public funds. They are not civil servants and are not subject to the same rules of employment as special advisers paid for from public

  555
  funds. In making an appointment, Ministers and unpaid advisers must ensure that there is no conflict between the issues on which the unpaid adviser will be advising and their private concerns; unpaid advisers are also subject to the normal rules of confidentiality. I am notified before these appointments are made.

  In addition to the political office in No. 10 Downing street, the following appointments have been made:

  Appointing Minister

  Appointee

  Individual or organisation paying their salary

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Sue Nye

  Not in receipt of any pay

  Deputy Prime Minister

  David Taylor

  Lancashire Enterprises PLC

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  David Mathieson

  Labour Party

  Minister without Portfolio

  Benjamin Wegg-Prosser

  Labour Party

  President of the Board of Plc Trade

  Lord Hollick

  United News and Media

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Anna Coote

  Institute of Public and Policy Research

  There are precedents for appointments on the same basis under previous Administrations.

HEALTH

  Child Care
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the arrangements for the care of pre-school age children. [7960]

  Mr. Boateng
  My hon. Friends the Under-Secretaries of State for Education and Employment, the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) and for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), met me on 30 June to discuss our plans to create a fully integrated early years service for all pre-school children. I shall ensure that we protect the care needs of very young children and in particular children in need as we develop our plans, but I believe that integrating services as we propose will greatly benefit young children.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what inequalities in Health and life expectancy exist between different regions in England. [7961]

  Ms Jowell
  Substantial inequalities in health and life expectancy exist between different regions in England. For example, in the early 1990s, there were regional variations in life expectancy at birth of more than three years for males and two and a half years for females. In 1992 East Anglia had the longest life expectation at 75.4 years for men and 80.3 years for women, while North Western had the worst at 72.3 years for men and 556
  77.6 years for women. Regional variations in certain measures of health are even greater. On the basis of the 1991 census question on limiting long standing illness, it has been estimated that the expected number of years of life in good health varies between the best and the worst region by six and a half years for men and five years for women.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the relative(a) health and (b) life expectancy of different ethnic groups in England. [7979]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on health in certain ethnic groups is available from various surveys and the 1991 census included specific questions on health and ethnicity. A collation of key information, "Ethnicity and Health: a guide for the NHS" was published in 1993 by the Department of Health and a new edition is in preparation.

  The fourth national survey of ethnic minorities, which was co-ordinated by the Policy Studies Institute, was the largest study of ethnic minorities ever carried out in Britain. An initial report which included a chapter on health was published earlier this year. More detailed reports on the physical and mental health of ethnic minorities are due out shortly.

  Although there are currently no data readily available on life expectancy in different ethnic groups the Acheson inquiry will be looking at inequalities in health, including those related to ethnicity, since this is a topic of considerable importance. Furthermore, detailed studies of mortality by country of birth have been performed which indicate marked differences from the national average in specific sub groups. For example, there are high rates of stroke mortality in people under 65 years among those born on the Indian subcontinent and in the Caribbean and African Commonwealth.

  Abortion
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his attendance at the Devolution, Scotland, Wales and Regions Cabinet Committee, with particular reference to discussions relating to abortion. [7962]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government's forthcoming White Paper will set out our proposals on all aspects of devolution, including abortion.

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he will be using to decide whom to appoint to the boards of NHS trusts. [7963]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department has recently issued revised guidelines on the qualities we will be looking for in non-executive directors of NHS trusts. The guidelines are designed to make boards much more representative of the communities they serve; to encourage more NHS users and carers to become members of boards; and to ensure that all candidates are personally committed to the national health service.

  Public Health Strategies
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to address the problems of want, idleness, squalor, ignorance and disease. [7964]

  Ms Jowell
  I addressed Beveridge's five giants in my speech on our new health strategy on 7 July, a copy of which is available in the Library. Our new health strategy will be wider and focus on determinants in health. Want will be tackled through the minimum wage. Idleness through the Welfare to work programme. Squalor through improved housing through the phased release of council house sale receipts; and through policies to improve the environment. Ignorance through education, by encouraging schools to promote health and well-being. Disease through rescuing the NHS banning tobacco advertising, establishing the food standards agency and a £1,000,000 programme of research into the effects of air pollutants commonly found in the home. This will complement research on outdoor pollutants which is already under way.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that the Government's public health strategy for England will address the issues of social exclusion. [7971]

  Ms Jowell
  As announced in my speech on 7 July, improving the health of our nation and tackling the legacy of inequality are matters not just for the Department of Health but are jobs to be confronted across Government. We aim to tackle poverty and inequality through our commitment to helping people move from welfare to work, to ending poverty pay by introducing a national minimum wage, and to improve housing conditions by the phased release of local authority capital receipts.

  Of all the important aspects of public health, none exacts a heavier toll in terms of disease and death than smoking. And smoking is a clear proxy for inequalities. There are more poor smokers, and as a result, poor people suffer disproportionately from preventable illness and premature death. That is why the Government have given an undertaking to ban tobacco advertising and promotion, and why we are determined to tackle smoking with the seriousness it deserves. On 14 July, we held an international anti-smoking summit to galvanise concerted action across society, and to learn from the experience of experts from around the world on how best to proceed. We will use the knowledge gained at the summit to inform the development of a White Paper which will be published later this year. The White Paper will set out in full our plans for measures to curb smoking, including our proposals for legislation to ban tobacco advertising.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many retired people he expects to relinquish private health cover as a consequence of the loss of tax relief. [7965]

  Mr. Milburn
  Few.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the abolition of tax relief on private medical insurance for the over-60s on the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [7973]
  558
  Mr. Milburn
  Any impact on the national health service will be dwarfed by the additional resources of £1.2 billion recently announced by the Chancellor.

  Management and Office Costs
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have achieved the previous Government's targets for reduction in management costs; and what assessment he has made of how soon health authorities will implement the £120 million of further cuts required in management and office costs. [7968]

  Mr. Milburn
  Final accounts figures for health authority costs and trust management costs in 1996–97 are expected to be available towards the end of the year.

  On 22 May, we announced that national health service management costs would be reduced by £100 million in 1997–98.

  Health Service Review
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he intends to publish a White paper on the future of the NHS; [7970]

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now expects the review of the NHS to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [7972]

  Mr. Milburn
  We intend to publish a White Paper on the national health service this autumn which will set out the Government's plans to replace the NHS internal market.

  Accident and Emergency Facilities (Solihull)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy towards the undertakings provided by the former Minister for Health on 20 March 1996 regarding services at Solihull hospital, with particular reference to 24 hour accident and emergency facilities; and if he will make a statement. [7969]

  Mr. Milburn
  The future of Solihull hospital within the Birmingham Heartlands NHS trust is secure. We will look to the trust to continue to provide high quality health services for the people of Solihull.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role and responsibilities of NHS trusts and their non-executive directors. [7974]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service trusts exist to provide a range of vital health services to the communities they serve. Non-executive directors are appointed to guide the work of the trust and to take decisions about policy and strategic direction to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of services.

  Operations
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether operations are being performed by appropriately qualified and supervised doctors. [7975]
  559
  Mr. Milburn
  We do not collect details about the medical staff who carry out operations. Hospital consultants are responsible for supervising the work of doctors in training. All doctors have a professional responsibility to ensure that they only undertake operations within their clinical competence.

  Waiting Lists
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about hospital waiting lists in(a) Stretford and Urmston and (b) Greater Manchester. [7976]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information about numbers of patients waiting for admission to national health service trusts in England is published quarterly in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest information available gives the position on 31 March 1997. This shows that the numbers of patients waiting for admission on either an in-patient or day case basis to the two major trusts in Stretford and Urmston have increased by 20 per cent. since 31 March 1996. In Greater Manchester the numbers waiting have increased at nine of the 12 major trusts serving the area, by 10 per cent. overall. The latter is in line with the increase nationally over the period.

  Nutrition
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to promote a greater awareness of nutrition in relation to the causes of ill health; and if he will make a statement. [7977]

  Ms Jowell
  Research by the Health Education Authority shows that most people in all social classes now know the key messages of healthy eating.

  The Department will continue to secure and publish expert independent advice from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy; to work with the Health Education Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in developing and publishing materials for health professionals and the general public on healthy eating throughout the age range; and to continue work to ensure that nutrition features in the training of health professionals and teachers.

  On 7 July I announced the Department's plans to publish a Green Paper in the autumn on a strategy for health which will be subject to wide consultation.

  Primary Care Commissioning
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when primary care commissioning pilots will commence. [7978]

  Mr. Milburn
  A programme of primary care-led commissioning pilots was announced on 26 June. Applications to take part in the programme should be made by 31 August and the final selection will be made by 30 September. Following a preparatory period, the evaluation will start on 1 April 1998.

  Insulin Pens
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his Department's intention to put insulin pen needles on prescription. [7980]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) on 17 June,Official Report at column 102.

  Health Service Funding
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made to ensure that services are not affected in the present financial year by the deficits in health authority and health trust budgets. [7981]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are under no illusions about the legacy we inherited. We know that the national health service is under considerable pressure this year. The first duty of the NHS is to respond to those in greatest need, ensuring capacity to respond to emergencies. This it must do. We are also actively taking steps to ensure full co-operation between local social services and the health service to help cope with winter pressures.

  Efficiency Savings (Lichfield)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit the Premier Health NHS trust headquarters in Lichfield to discuss efficiency savings in the national health service. [7967]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans to visit the Premier Health National Health Service Trust, but are aware of the trust's improving efficiency and its streamlined management structure. The Government welcome this, given our firm commitment to reducing bureaucracy in the NHS.

  NHS Sale and Lease Arrangements
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the applicability of sale and lease arrangements to the NHS. [6790]

  Mr. Milburn
  Sale and leaseback may be appropriate where value for money to the national health service can be clearly demonstrated. However, the consequences of any such arrangements need to be carefully considered to ensure they are to the long term benefit of the NHS.

  Private Finance Initiative (Hospital Projects)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider hospital PFI proposals which include the provision by the contracting body of any form of clinical support services. [7418]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 10 July 1997,Offical Report, at column 578.

  Private finance initiative schemes which come forward for approval before the announcement at the end of the year will not be approved if they include services which Ministers consider, in the interests of the national health service, to be inappropriate.

  Immunisation Campaigns
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by his Department on mumps, measles and rubella vaccination campaigns for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what is the amount of expenditure planned for(a) 1997; (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [7838]

  Ms Jowell
  It is not possible to identify expenditure on measles, mumps and rubella immunisation separately within the childhood immunisation programme.

  Immunisation expenditure is made up of three components: the cost of buying the vaccines; the cost of giving the vaccines; and the cost of the accompanying information materials. Only vaccine purchase expenditure can be identified for each vaccine, and is shown in the table.

  Expenditure on giving measles, mumps and rubella immunisations cannot be separately identified since general practitioners receive a target payment for immunisation based on the percentage of children on their list who are immunised against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, haemophilus influenzae type B, and measles, mumps and rubella. Similarly information expenditure, through the Health Education Authority and the Department of Health's own immunisation materials for parents, covers the whole immunisation programme: as such it is not possible to identify expenditure which might be attributable to measles, mumps and rubella immunisation.

  The cost of purchasing measles, mumps and rubella vaccines in each of the last five financial years is in the table:

  1992–93: £4.3 million

  1993–94: £5.3 million

  1994–95: £16.8 million

  1995–96: £6.8 million

  1996–97: £9.7 million

  The figures include:

  (i) all years: a single dose of measles, mumps and rubella(MMR)—vaccine offered to all children at age 12 to 15 months;

  (ii) all years: rubella vaccine offered to sero-negative women;

  (iii) 1994–95: measles and rubella vaccine offered to all children aged between 5 and 16 during a nationwide campaign to avert a predicted epidemic;

  (iv) until October 1996: rubella immunisation offered to all girls at age 10–14;

  (v) from October 1996: a second dose of MMR vaccine offered to all children at the time they receive their pre-school immunisations.

  (vi) a catch-up second dose MMR programme also initiated from October 1996. Full details are in EL(96)61, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The estimated cost of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines purchased over the next three years is:

  1997–98: £7.9 million

  1998–99: £7.9 million

  1999–2000: £7.8 million

  Note: includes the forecast of two doses of MMR vaccine offered to all children before school entry; and rubella vaccine offered to sero-negative women.
  562

  Care Homes (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation Wiltshire social services undertakes with a referred patient before placing that patient in(a) a local authority home and (b) a private sector home. [8424]

  Mr. Boateng
  Wiltshire social services department has informed the Department of Health that it will first assess the needs of the person. If it decides that the person requires to be placed in a residential home, it encourages the person to consider at least three homes, two of which it would expect to be within the independent sector.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many formal notifications were made to Wiltshire's director of social services and chief executive in the last five years as a result of requirements set at inspections of care homes which have not been complied with against specified time scales. [8414]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department does not specifically collect this information. However, registration authorities should return to the Department details of those home owners whose registration they refuse or cancel. This is compiled on the national list of refused and cancelled registrations which is then circulated to all local authorities in England. For Wiltshire in this period we have been notified of only one cancellation. In addition, for this period, the registration of one further home owner in Wiltshire was cancelled following appeal to the registered homes tribunal.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much he estimates could be saved if Wiltshire county council moved its residential homes into private sector management. [8415]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have not made such an estimate because centrally available information does not include sufficient detail. In particular, the routine statistics do not distinguish the expenditure on placements in private care homes from those in the voluntary sector.

  It is for each local authority to decide how best to arrange their community care services to meet the needs of their population. We have made it clear that it is not important whether services are provided by the public, private or voluntary sector. What is important, and what the Government are committed to, is that people will receive services which are of high quality, are responsive to their needs and wishes, and which deliver value for money.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) local authority and (b) private sector homes have block bookings by Wiltshire social services. [8417]

  Mr. Boateng
  Wiltshire social services has informed the Department that it gives its in-house residential homes an annual budget. The majority of the places that it purchases from the independent sector are "spot purchased".

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) county council run and (b) private sector care homes have (i) opened and (b) closed in Wiltshire in each of the last five years. [8419]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of residential care homes opened and closed in the former county of Wiltshire in the years 1993–94 to 1995–96, together with
  563
  the total number of residential care homes at 31 March 1996, is given in the following table. Reliable information is not available for earlier years. Comparable information is not available centrally for nursing care homes.

  Residential care homes in Wiltshire, 1993–94 to 1995–9611

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Local authority homes:

  opened in year

  2

  0

  0

  closed in year

  2

  1

  0

  number open at end of year

  33

  32

  32

  Private sector:

  opened in year

  10

  6

  1

  closed in year

  6

  5

  5

  number open at end of year

  121

  122

  118

  Voluntary sector homes:

  opened in year

  5

  6

  5

  closed in year

  2

  1

  0

  number open at end of year

  56

  61

  66

  Source:

  Department of Health Annual Statistical return (RAC5).

  Note:

  1 April to 31 March of the following year in each case.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what projections his Department has evaluated of the number of council-run care places and private sector care places which will be needed in the future in Wiltshire. [8422]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department has not made any such evaluation. It is for each local authority to plan its community care services to meet the needs of its population.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names by sector of the nursing home and residential care providers used by Wiltshire health authority indicating the percentage of clients funded by Wiltshire social services at each and the average weekly cost to Wiltshire county council per resident at each home. [8426]

  Mr. Boateng
  At 31 March 1996, there were 32 local authority care homes, 66 voluntary sector residential care homes and 118 private sector residential care homes in former county of Wiltshire. In addition there were a further 85 private nursing homes within the Wiltshire and Bath health authority area at the same date. A list of the names of all these homes has been placed in the Library.

  Information is not collected centrally on the numbers of residents in each home who are supported financially by the local authority nor on expenditure related to such placements, so costs cannot be calculated at the level of individual homes. Such expenditure information as has been provided in respect of the former Wiltshire is of total, rather than the usual gross, expenditure by sector. Weekly costs based on this measure of expenditure could not take account of income received from other local authorities in respect of residential provision in Wiltshire of clients normally resident outside the county boundary and would not be comparable with weekly costs produced for other local authorities.
  564
  Information on the numbers of residents financially supported by Wiltshire social services at 31 March 1996 in homes within Wiltshire, by sector, is shown in the table.

  Residents financially supported by Wiltshire social services, 31 March 1996

  Local authority

  Voluntary sector residential care

  Private sector residential care

  Private nursing care

  Number of financially supported residents supported in homes in Wiltshire

  963

  78

  681

  611

  Percentage of all residents in homes in Wiltshire

  91

  13

  35

  27

  Number of financially supported residents supported in homes outside Wiltshire

  —

  16

  94

  120

  Source:

  Department of Health Annual Statistical returns (RAC5, SR1).

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing home patients have been placed in council-run residential homes in Wiltshire in the last five years. [8423]

  Mr. Boateng
  Local authorities are required to provide services which meet the assessed needs of the individual. If a person has been assessed as needing care in a nursing home the local authority cannot place them in a residential home.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much Wiltshire social services has spent on places in(a) council and (b) private care homes in each year since 1991. [8425]

  Mr. Boateng
  Routine financial statistics returned by the former Wiltshire county council have wrongly included expenditure on independent sector provision along with that on local authority homes and therefore do not provide the information requested. The following breakdown of the statistics has been obtained specially from the authority but the figures are of total expenditure rather than the usual gross expenditure and so take no account of any income received by the authority from other local authorities in respect of residential provision in Wiltshire of clients normally resident outside the county boundary.

  Total expenditure on residential provision for adults (excluding nursing provision), Wiltshire, 1993–94 to 1995–96

  £million

  Sector of home

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Local authority

  17

  16

  16

  (b) Independent sector

  5

  15

  20

  (c) Total

  22

  31

  35

  Comparable figures for earlier years are not available from the authority.
  565
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much he estimates needs to be spent on Wiltshire county council care homes to bring them up to(a) 1984 Government minimum standard and (b) 1997 Government standards. [8413]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information needed to make such an estimate is not available centrally. The Government have made no changes to the Registered Homes Act 1984 and associated regulations which sets out the requirements which care homes must meet to obtain and retain registration under the Act.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the patient/staff ratio in(a) local authority and (b) private nursing and residential homes in Wiltshire. [8420]

  Mr. Boateng
  Latest centrally available information for 1995–96 shows that the ratio of residents to directly employed staff in local authority residential homes for adults in the former county of Wiltshire was 1.36 to 1 and the ratio of residents to nursing staff in private nursing homes in the Wiltshire and Bath health authority area was 1.08 to 1. Staffing information is not collected centrally in respect of private residential homes.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the Pannell Kerr Forster review of services for the elderly commissioned by Wiltshire county council. [8416]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department has not assessed the Pannell Kerr Forster Review of Services report. This review was commissioned by Wiltshire county council, and it is for them to consider its findings.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the present number of vacancies in(a) council-run and (b) private nursing and residential homes in Wiltshire. [8418]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of vacancies in residential and nursing care homes in the former county of Wiltshire as at 31 March 1996, the latest date for which information is available centrally, is given in the table.

  Vacancies in care homes in Wiltshire at 31 March 1996

  Sector and type of care home

  Number of vacancies

  As percentage of total places

  Local authority care homes

  114

  9.7

  Private residential care homes

  449

  18.6

  Voluntary residential care homes

  79

  11.3

  Private nursing homes1

  454

  16.7

  Source:

  Department of Health annual statistical returns (RAC5 and K036)

  Note:

  1 Private and voluntary nursing homes registered with Wiltshire and Bath health authority.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the(a) average and (b) the longest stay in hospital of a patient awaiting placement in long-term care by Wiltshire social services. [8421]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department does not have this information. Wiltshire has informed the Department that their policy on this issue is that they aim to place people in a care home as soon as possible after the assessment has taken place, and the person has decided on a care home of his/her choice.

  Missed Appointments
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cost is incurred by the NHS through the failure of patients to turn up for scheduled operations; how this figure is calculated; and if he will make a statement. [8740]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information is not available on the costs incurred by the national health service for patients who miss their operations. Hospitals may be able to redirect resources, for example for the treatment of emergency cases that need to be fitted in during the day. In 1996–97 223,000 patients failed to turn-up for in-patient treatment. The average cost for a finished consultant episode in 1995–96—the latest figure available—was £1,103.

  Aricept
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance his Department has issued regarding protocols for the use of the drug Aricept; [8782]

  (2) if he will list the health authorities in England and Wales which have agreed to fund the use of Aricept by (a) general practitioners and (b) hospital consultants; [8783]

  (3) if he will list the hospitals in England and Wales whose hospital formulary includes Aricept. [8781]

  Mr. Milburn
  Guidance has been prepared by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and endorsed by the standing medical advisory committee. We are currently considering whether to issue management guidance to the NHS, together with the clinical guidance on the prescribing of Aricept. Many health authorities and hospitals are still in the process of determining their local policy on the use of this drug.

  Asthma
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the NHS expenditure on the treatment of asthma in the latest year for which figures are available; and what proportion of the total NHS budget this represents; [8863]

  (2) what was the cost to the NHS of providing acute care to adults suffering from occupational asthma attacks in the last five financial years; [8859]

  (3) what was the cost to the NHS of treating adult occupational asthma sufferers, in each year since 1989–90; [8864]

  (4) if he will list NHS expenditure on treatment for asthma broken down by sub-head in the latest year for which information is available; and what proportion of this expenditure was spent on prescriptions. [8862]

  Mr. Boateng
  The bulk of the costs of asthma to the national health service is attributable to prescriptions. Information on the cost of other NHS services is for individual conditions and is only available locally. However, the Department of Health's "Burdens of Disease" analysis estimated that the cost of services for asthma was 150 million in 1993. On this basis, asthma
  567
  accounted for under 2 per cent. of NHS net expenditure—including drugs—in 1992–93. The net ingredient cost of national health service prescriptions for asthma medication in 1996 was £438 million, which is 11 per cent. of the total net ingredient cost of prescriptions in that year. It is not possible to separate out the costs to the NHS of occupational asthma.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the net ingredient cost for preparations used in treatment of asthma(a) in total and (b) per health authority, in each of the last four years; [8861]

  (2) how many prescriptions for the treatment of asthma (a) in total and (b) per health authority were issued in each of the last four years; [8860]

  (3) what was the expenditure on general practitioner-prescribed anti-asthma medication and preparations in each health authority broken down by (a) net ingredient costs and (b) net ingredient costs per capita in England. [8856]

  Mr. Milburn
  The available information has been placed in the Library. Information on the use of specific drugs in hospitals is not available.

  Hospital Waste
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to encourage hospitals to adopt sustainable waste policies; and if he will make a statement. [8737]

  Mr. Milburn
  Waste strategy in hospitals should reflect the policies of "Making Waste Work—a strategy for sustainable waste management in England and Wales" published by the Department of the Environment in December 1995. However, in view of the inherent nature of health care provision, the reuse and recycling elements of the waste hierarchy have to be considered particularly carefully to avoid any risk of cross-infection. National Health Service Estates, an executive agency of the Department of Health, is preparing health technical memorandum 2065 "Waste Guidance", due for publication in September, dealing with the minimisation and segregation of clinical waste.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants there are on each pay band in his Department. [8954]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Pay band

  Total

  Permanent secretary

  3

  Senior civil service pay band 8

  7

  SCSPB7

  7

  SCSPB6

  3

  SCSPB5

  1

  SCSPB4

  36

  SCSPB3

  17

  SCSPB2

  24

  SCSPB1

  264

  568

  Pay band

  Total

  Integrated pay band 4

  772

  IP3

  1,144

  Fast stream

  45

  IP2

  966

  IP1

  1,423

  Total

  4,712

  1. There are also some 150 staff who have not yet been assimilated into the new pay band structure.

  2. These above figures are a head count and exclude casual staff, and staff out on loan, secondment, or special leave without pay.

  July 1997.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of employees in his private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8952]

  Ms Jowell
  Of 47 staff working in the private office, five or 11 per cent. are of ethnic minority origin and there are three or 6 per cent. whose ethnic origin is not known. To protect the confidentiality of staff, we cannot provide a further breakdown.

  Accident and Emergency Departments (North Thames Region)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the average waiting times at accident and emergency departments for patient requiring admission at(a) Hillingdon, (b) Ealing, (c) Northwich Park and (d) West Middlesex hospitals. [9174]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department collects information by health authority which shows the percentage of patients requiring hospital admission through accident and emergency who were admitted within two hours. This information for the quarter ending 31 March 1997 for health authorities in north-west London is set out in the following table:

  Health authority

  Patients admitted within 2 hours Percentage

  Brent and Harrow HA1

  84

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Houslow HA2

  50

  Hillingdon HA3

  84

  1 Covers Northwick Park and St.Marks NHS trust

  2 Covers Ealing Hospital NHS trust and West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust.

  3 Covers Hillingdon Hospital NHS trust.

  Action is being taken within the NHS to ensure that the needs of the emergency patient are met as effectively as possible.

  Hospital Admissions (North Thames Region)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged over 60 years have been admitted to hospital for one or more nights in each of the last three years at(a) Hillingdon, (b) Mount Vernon, (c) West Middlesex, (d) Ealing and (e) Northwick Park hospitals. [9183]
  569
  Mr. Boateng
  Because of the changes and amalgamations that have taken place in the trust during the period concerned, the information given is the best estimate the national health service executive has available. The most recent information held is as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS trust

  6,073

  6,496

  5,906

  Mount Vernon and Watford Hospital NHS trust

  6,352

  5,963

  12,632

  West Middlesex University Hospital NHS trust

  6,420

  5,897

  6,087

  Ealing Hospital NHS trust

  5,224

  5,318

  5,648

  Northwick Park and St. Mark's NHS trust

  6,370

  5,875

  6,368

  The incorporation of Watford Trust into the Mount Vernon NHS Trust from 1994–95 explains the marked increase in cases recorded for the 1994–95 year.

  School Nurses (North Thames Region)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of school nurses employed by each community health trust within .the(a) Hillingdon, (b) Brent and Harrow, (c) Ealing, (d) Hammersmith and (e) Hounslow health authorities. [9175]

  Mr. Milburn
  Up to date information is not available centrally because from 1994 the Department of Health's non-medical work force census ceased to distinguish school nurses from other qualified nurses working in community services, excluding health visitors and district nurses. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the individual health authorities for the information.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what code of practice and treatment recommendations are issued by his Department for the treatment of sufferers from Alzheimer's disease. [9493]

  Mr. Boateng
  Decisions about the treatment of Alzheimer's disease are a matter for the judgment of the medical practitioners in consultation with other members of the multi-disciplinary team.

  Nye Bevan Anniversary
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of Nye Bevan. [9182]

  Mr. Milburn
  Although there are no national plans to mark the centenary of Nye Bevan's birth, there will be events and initiatives throughout the country during 1998 to mark the 50th anniversary of the founding of the national health serviceNye Bevan's greatest achievement.

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often since 1992 his Department has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9503]
  570
  Ms Jowell
  Information on the wording of all advertisements since 1992 is not available except at disproportionate cost, but it is not normal practice to have age restrictions for posts in the Department of Health.

  Dentists' Pay
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the levels of pay for salaried dentists working in the national health service; what other benefits are available to such dentists; and if he will make a statement. [9192]

  Mr. Milburn
  The salary scale for salaried dentists currently ranges from £21,360 to £31,080. Benefits available to salaried dentists are removal expenses, the same sick leave entitlements as community dental staff, paid annual leave discretionary additional leave to enable them to attend appropriate postgraduate refresher courses, and eligibility for the national health service superannuation scheme.

  Recovered Memory Therapy
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has made to the Royal College of Psychiatrists on the Brandon report on recovered memory therapy. [9867]

  Mr. Boateng
  We understand that the Brandon report has not yet been published and look forward to reading it in due course.

  Prescription Fraud
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual cost of prescription fraud in(a) Tamworth, (b) Staffordshire and (c) the west midlands. [9777]

  Mr. Milburn
  The report of the efficiency scrutiny into prescription fraud, published last month, estimated levels of prescription fraud in England and Wales as £85 million£115 million per year. Based on the six-monthly exemption checking exercise carried out by family health services authorities, it is estimated that in 1995–96 the loss of revenue from patient charge evasion was about £0.4 million in Staffordshire family health services authority and about –5 million in West Midlands regional health authority. The total loss of revenue from patient charge evasion for that year, calculated on a different basis to that used by the efficiency scrutiny, was an estimated £34.5 million. It is not possible to estimate the loss in Tamworth alone.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the revised framework document for the Medicines Control Agency. [10346]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have today published the revised Medicines Control Agency framework documents and copies have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the annual report and accounts of the NHS Pensions Agency. [10347]
  571
  Mr. Milburn
  We have approved the report and accounts which have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Palliative Care
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to increase access to palliative care; [7902]

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the development of palliative care. [8179]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government are aware of the valuable work of hospices and specialist palliative care units in this country. The development of palliative care has done much to change our attitude to death and the process of dying, demonstrating the positive aspects of good management of the patient up to the point of death. With appropriate palliative care, pain and other distressing symptoms can be greatly reduced and people helped to cope. We are committed to expanding palliative care for the dying in all settings. It is our policy that specialist palliative care should be available to all those in need of it, wherever they may live, as is recognised in the report "A Policy Framework for commissioning cancer services"—the "Calman/Hine" report—and the associated guidance in Executive Letter EL(96)85 "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services: Palliative Care Services". Copies of both these documents are available in the Library. We look to all health authorities to ensure that they have a strategy in place to achieve this and we are encouraging increasing provision throughout the national health service.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the Government's review of the NHS takes full account of the relationship between the NHS and the independent hospice movement; and if he will make a statement. [8181]

  Mr. Milburn
  The comprehensive spending review will review all aspects of Government spending in the context of the Government's election manifesto commitment:"if 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—and not on your ability to pay, or on who your general practitioner happens to be or where you live".

  We welcome any contributions from interested parties such as the independent hospice movement.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received alleging that prescription charges for oral contraception would be discriminatory. [8354]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.
  572
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce prescription charges for oral contraceptives. [8355]

  Mr. Milburn
  We shall be examining prescription charges as part of the Government's comprehensive spending review. The Government remain committed to the historic principle of the national health service that health services will be available to all and access will be based on need, not on ability to pay.

  Foster Care
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review foster care, with special reference to the views of young people in care and foster carers. [8484]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been a number of departmental initiatives to review the foster care service. The Social Services Inspectorate recently carried out a national inspection to review foster care services. This included interviewing children in foster care and their carers. Their report, "Inspection of Local Authority Fostering 1995–96, National Summary Report", was published in December 1996. In addition, the Department has funded three other research reports. They were: a study undertaken by the National Foster Care Association into "The Organisation of Fostering Services," published in March 1997; "Foster Care, A Research Review", published in March 1997; and "Private Fostering: Development of Policy and Practice", published in March 1997 by the Save the Children Fund. Copies of all these reports were placed in the Library.

  The review of safeguards for children living away from home, currently being conducted by Sir William Utting, has also looked at children in foster care. Consultation with young people formed part of the review process.

  In 1995, the Department launched the "Looking After Children: Good Parenting, Good Outcomes" materials. They provide the opportunity to engage children, wherever they are placed, in their own care plans and encourage communications between all those involved in the care of the child. In the light of this, we do not consider a further review is necessary.

  Embryos
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many frozen embryos have been destroyed to date(a) under the provisions of the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 1990 and (b) under other authority. [9705]

  Ms Jowell
  The figures requested are not routinely collected.

  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 regulates, among other things, the storage of embryos. The Act requires embryos to be removed from storage and allowed to perish if the consent of the patients whose eggs and sperm created the embryos is withdrawn, or if the period of storage permitted under the Act comes to an end. For embryos stored on or before 1 August 1991, when the Act came into force, the maximum period for storage was five years, that is, until 31 July 1996.
  573
  Regulations came into effect on 1 May 1996 which extended the maximum storage period for embryos from five to 10 years, or longer in particular circumstances, if certain conditions were met. Effective consent under the Act for the extended storage period must be obtained in all cases.

  Embryos stored on or before 31 July 1991 for which the required consent for extended storage was not given had, under the terms of the 1990 Act, to be allowed to perish on 1 August 1996. Information provided by licensed clinics to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority shows that 4,402 embryos were removed from storage on or about that date.

  Licensed Drugs
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the differences between health authorities regarding funding for the prescribing of certain licensed drugs; to what extent health authorities are free to refuse to prescribe certain drugs on the grounds of cost; and if he will review the disparities. [10106]

  Mr. Milburn
  Purchasers are responsible for funding those services which are clinically effective and meet the needs of local people in the light of the resources available.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10186]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health has set up the following reviews:A review of the law relating to surrogacy, which is expected to report at the end of this year or at the start of next.
  A review of the evidence relating to possible health risks associated with silicone breast implants, which is expected to report to the chief medical officer in late 1997.
  A review of the breast cancer screening service in Devon and its implications for the breast cancer screening programme as a whole, which is expected to report in the next few weeks.
  The independent advisory panel for the review of London's health services, the main elements of whose work are due to be completed by October 1997.
  A review by Sir Donald Acheson into inequalities of health and life epectancy, which is expected to report during 1998.
  An independent review of some key lessons to be drawn from experience of the "Health of the Nation", which is expected to report in the second quarter of 1998.

  Health Promotion in Schools
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvements he proposes to promote good health in schools. [7956]
  574
  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) earlier today.

  Cross-departmental Co-operation
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to promote cross-departmental co-operation in the development of the Government's public health strategy. [7950]

  Ms Jowell
  There is a commitment across Government to improve the overall health of the nation and to share responsibility for the new health strategy for England. We have set up a Cabinet Sub-committee to oversee the new strategy which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and will be attended by Ministers from 13 Government Departments, including myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall also be meeting a range of ministerial colleagues from other Departments as we develop "Our Healthier Nation".

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mortgage Benefit
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the cost of introducing a mortgage benefit equivalent to housing benefit for low income owner occupiers in work. [5442]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our objective is to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to promote work incentives. We will develop a system that supports work, savings and honesty, whilst keeping to our commitment to work within announced spending totals for the first two years of the Government.

  Various forms of mortgage benefit for low-income owner-occupiers in employment have been suggested. The cost could be up to £1 billion per year, if the benefit was fully taken up.

  Pensions Review
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what timetable has been set for her Department's review of pensions; what areas will be covered in this review; and if she will make a statement. [6846]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Davidson) on 17 July,Official Report, columns 239–41.

  Asthma
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many registered days of certified incapacity due to sickness and invalidity caused by asthma there were in 1995; and how much this cost in benefits payments. [8858]
  575
  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  14 April 1994 to 12 April 1995

  Number of days of certified incapacity due to asthma, excluding days for which statutory sick pay is payable.

  217,061,000

  Estimated cost of sickness and invalidity benefit

  3£179 million

  1 The year ending April 1995 is the latest period for which figures are available.

  2 Source: 1 per cent. sample of all claims in Great Britain. Diagnosis taken from the International Classification of Diseases [1975 edition].

  3 It is not possible to provide figures for other benefits, such as income support which may be payable in addition to or in place of incapacity benefit.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10184]

  Ms Harman
  The major components of this Department's programme are being reviewed as part of the comprehensive spending review, the terms of reference of which will be announced shortly.

  As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 14 July, Official Report, column 3, we expect the comprehensive spending review to last approximately 12 months.

  On 17 July I also announced a view of the central areas of insecurity for elderly people including all aspects of the basic pension and its value and second pensions including SERPS. The purpose of the review is to build a sustainable consensus for the long-term future of pensions. It will enable the Government to publish an initial framework for change in the first part of 1998. There will then be a period of further consultation before firm proposals are developed.

  Child Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will give a breakdown of the compensation applications and awards made to Child Support Agency clients in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [5272]

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

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.
  576
  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 21 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency compensatory applications and awards. These are referred to as special payments.
  The table attached indicates the number of applications and awards made to customers during the requested periods, against the Agency's live and assessed caseload of over half-a-million.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Child Support Agency live and assessed caseload 579,200

  Total awards made

  Special payments applications made

  Number of cases

  Total amount paid

  1995–96

  1,013

  186

  £115,000

  1996–97

  2,177

  983

  £656,000

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will list for each financial year since the establishment of the Child Support Agency(a) how much the agency has paid out in compensatory payments, (b) in how many case compensatory payments have been made, (c) the average amount paid out in compensatory payments, (d) in what proportion of cases dealt with by the CSA compensatory payments have been made and (e) the total number of maintenance assessments carried out by the CSA in each of these periods; [7213]

  (2) if she will list for each financial year since the establishment of the Child Support Agency in how many instances the CSA has made compensatory payments between (a) £0 and £100, (b) £100 and £500, (c) £500 and £1,000 and £5,000 and (e) in excess of £5,000. [7212]

  Mr. Bradley
  [holding answer 9 July 1997]: We expect the Child Support Agency to provide an efficient and effective service to all its clients throughout the child support assessment process. We are looking for substantial and sustained operational improvements from the agency, in particular on getting more maintenance paid, reducing the backlong and improving customer service.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mrs Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 21 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency compensatory payments.
  The tables attached provide all the available information regarding compensatory payments. A breakdown of payments into monetary values is not available for 1994/95 or 1995/96 and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Child Support Agency compensatory payments—miscellaneous

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Amount paid

  £100

  £10,200

  £115,000

  £656,000

  Number of payments made

  1

  77

  186

  983

  Average amount

  £100

  £133

  £779

  £667

  577

  Child Support Agency compensatory payments—miscellaneous

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Percentage proportion of compensatory payments to total clearances

  0.0003

  0.01

  0.06

  0.28

  Number of maintenance assessments

  205,000

  251,000

  128,000

  129,000

  Child Support Agency compensatory payments—payments breakdown

  Amount

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  £0–99.99

  —

  Not available

  257

  £100–499.99

  1

  Not available

  334

  £500–999.99

  —

  Not available

  180

  £1,000+

  —

  Not available

  212

  Total

  1

  77

  186

  983

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will make available the 1996–97 annual reports and accounts for each of her next steps agencies. [10330]

  Ms Harman
  The 1996–97 annual reports and accounts have been laid before Parliament today for the Benefits, Child Support, Contributions, Information Technology Services, and War Pensions Agencies.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the new level of child care costs disregard 578
  proposed for family credit will come into effect; and if (a) new and (b) existing claimants, will have access to the higher level of disregard from that date. [9560]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  This measure forms part of the Government's commitment to develop a national child care strategy. Within that strategy, the Government will plan provision to match requirements of the modern labour market and provide the help needed by parents to balance the demands of family and working life.

  The proposed improvements to the child care disregard will be brought in at the earliest opportunity, in the summer of 1998. Following the date of introduction, all new awards, for both new and existing claimants, will take account of the new level of disregard. Family credit is awarded at a fixed rate for 26 weeks and existing recipients will be eligible from the first renewal claim following the date of introduction.

  Pension Review Cases
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will give for the Review of Pension cases(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8251]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 24 June, Official Report, column 454, in which I repeated the Government's challenge to the 24 firms which are together responsible for nearly three-quarters of the cases requiring review, that they should better the targets set by the Securities and Investments Board and the Personal Investment Authority. It is the Government's view that all firms should endeavour to meet, if not better, the targets set by their regulators. The costs of conducting the review are a matter for the firms.

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

Lord Levene of Portsoken
Sir Peter Keith Levene, KBE, having been created Baron Levene of Portsoken, of Portsoken in the City of London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Weinstock and the Lord Vincent of Coleshill.
Lord Inge
Field Marshal Sir Peter Anthony Inge, GCB, having been created Baron Inge, of Richmond in the County of North Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carrington and the Lord Vincent of Coleshill.

Sea Fisheries: Quota Hopping
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they have had with British fishermen's organisations about the results of the recent meetings between the member states of the European Union concerned on the subject of quota hopping in sea fisheries.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, Ministers met with leaders of the fishing industry last week to consider among other things what additional steps might be taken to ensure that British registered fishing vessels maintain a close economic link with our coastal communities in the light of the recent advice provided by the President of the European Commission. Further meetings are planned.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that two supposed concessions for British fishermen at the time of the Amsterdam conference appear to be of little value to them? First, the requirement that quota hoppers should land half their catches at UK ports has little effect. Indeed, one effect is simply to reduce fish prices for British fishermen. Secondly, tightening rules on the British component of vessels was attempted in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and that was declared illegal by the European Court. Will not any further move in that direction be found to contravene again the European laws of establishment?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not agree with that. The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was ruled to be contrary to the common fisheries policy. The measures we are now pursuing are in line with the recommendations of the President of the Commission. We are assured that they are possible within the law. The President is the guardian of the European treaty and therefore we are reasonably confident that we shall be able to resist any legal challenge. I do not accept what the noble Lord said about landings. If we secure that 50 per cent. of the fish caught are landed in the UK—and that was not secured under the previous agreements—that will have many benefits. Some of the fish may well be transported abroad on landing but we shall gain many benefits from landing charges, transportation receipts and, above all, from the greater opportunity to inspect the fish landed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that licences granted to catch fish in our waters as long as five years ago contain the requirement that at least 50 per cent. of the fish should be landed in our ports? Does he not agree, therefore, that no progress has been made at Amsterdam at all on this subject? Does he not also agree that, although the President of the European Commission may regard himself as the guardian of the treaty, the Luxembourg Court is the engine of the treaty and we shall have little chance if our case is ever brought before it again?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not accept the latter point, for the reasons I have stated. As regards the percentage of landings, it is not the case that the present licence condition is merely a repeat of a previous condition. Previously landings were indicated as a condition but it was also indicated that a mere four visits to a UK port in six months was an alternative. That alternative does not now exist. In the conditions we are pursuing, in consultation with British fishermen, there will be a much tighter requirement.
Lord Parry: My Lords, is my noble friend free to tell the House the present state of litigation existing between Spanish based interests at Milford Haven and the Government?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am not in that position but I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the vexed problem of quota hopping which Her Majesty's Government are now having to try to solve was created initially by British trawler owners selling their quotas to foreign, mainly Spanish, interests and that while that selling of quotas was going on the then Tory Government stood aside and did absolutely nothing about it?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. He will be aware that the origins of quota hopping are complex. Some of the problem relates to the situation before the common fisheries policy of 1983 when the foreign ownership of British

1301
registered ships was allowed to continue. My noble friend is right to say that a major problem arose with the second multi-annual guidance programme for fish conservation where the previous government did not pursue any policy of decommissioning and, in a belief in the free market, allowed foreigners to purchase such licences and, indeed, handed them to them for nothing.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we, and I believe the entire fishing industry, will be delighted if any good comes of the Amsterdam conference. We shall also be surprised.
Will the noble Lord confirm that in the forthcoming round of MAGP—doubtless the Government will behave in the way they wish that we had behaved—it will be impossible for the Government to insist that those foreign-owned vessels participate in the capacity reduction? There is no allowance for compulsory capacity reduction. Will the Minister confirm that cuts in capacity are likely to be in the British-owned fleet leaving quota hoppers an even larger percentage of our total fleet?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the reductions will be across the British fleet. There is a problem in targeting quota hoppers in terms of capacity reduction, as the previous Government attempted to do. The ambitions of the multi-annual guidance programme to preserve stocks are aimed at stocks such as cod and herring. In fact the quota hoppers are small fishers. The subject is complex. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall pursue British interests with maximum vigour. I am confident that there will be some benefits from the recent agreement.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the Minister mentioned decommissioning. Do the Government have any plans to spend more money on decommissioning?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we have £12 million available to assist decommissioning. That item was one of the subjects in discussions held by my right honourable friend with representatives of the British fishing industry on 15th July.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Minister look again at the judgment of the European Court? I think he will find that, contrary to his statement that the legislation was found to be in contravention of the fishing regime, it was found to be in contravention of the European laws on establishment of businesses. That illustrated the contradiction between two parts of the law and the Commission's work. The fishing regime is based on quotas for nationalities, and nothing but nationalities. The establishment regime more or less equalises all the nationalities in the European Union.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, there are judicial complexities. However, I can assure the noble Lord that it is our confident belief that the new measures we are pursuing will be sustained within the law.

Cocaine: Export of Precursor Chemicals
3.5 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider the case for drug enforcement authorities to have improved access to information concerning the export by European manufacturers of precursor chemicals used in the production of cocaine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, yes. United Kingdom enforcement authorities already have access to information on exports of such chemicals from this country. A number of agreements have been made with countries where cocaine is produced providing for the sharing of such information with their drug enforcement authorities, and more are being negotiated. The United Kingdom played a leading role in the recent United Nations International Narcotics Control Board meeting which identified a number of ways of further improving information exchange.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, while recognising that there are legal measures in place both here and in Brussels, will the Minister nevertheless agree that stronger action is required, given that the majority of precursor chemicals, without which there would be little production of cocaine and many other hard drugs, are produced in Europe and the United States?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Viscount said. We already have agreements with Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Mexico and the United States which provide for the sharing of information on shipments of precursor chemicals. We intend to conclude similar agreements with Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the previous administration that some 80 per cent. of the illegal heroin seized in this country entered through Turkey? Have the Government had discussions with the Turkish Government: and, if so, with what result?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, shipments from Turkey are a continuing problem which is not overlooked by the Government. We believe—I think that it was the policy of the previous administration—that the key to the question is co-operation with overseas drug enforcement agencies. We have inherited the drugs liaison officer network. We have 50 United Kingdom DLOs stationed in 31 countries on drug trafficking routes in Europe, North and South America, the Caribbean and Asia.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that far from the export of drugs, exporters in this country are being penalised and

1303
jeopardised because of the increase in the base rate and the resulting strength of sterling? What will the Government do about that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in answering the noble Viscount's Question, and the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I sought to treat this Question on drug menace with seriousness in your Lordships' House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a great deal of work has been done on the subject of precursor chemicals by the National Criminal Intelligence Service? I assume that that work is continuing.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right. I am more than willing to pay tribute to the work that NCIS does. Within the past few days I had the great privilege of visiting NCIS to discuss its work; its demands, necessarily, for more resources; and the way ahead. I am careful to state that I was unable to say anything in response to its request for further resources.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, can the Minister identify any stronger measures that could be effected in this area?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. We press ahead with the regime that we have. We try to put what resource we can into international co-operation. If we do not gain intergovernmental co-operation, if we do not have inter-agency co-operation, we shall get nowhere. One of the serious dangers of the drug trade is the vast amount of money involved. It is notorious that when vast amounts of money are swilling about, sometimes political systems become corrupted. That is a matter to which the Government are keenly attentive.

Armed Forces: HIV Screening Policy
3.9 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy with regard to the screening of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces to discover any who may be HIV positive.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, in accordance with long-standing government policy there is no compulsory medical screening for HIV infection of either recruits or those already in service with the Armed Forces. Those who consider themselves to be at risk are encouraged to consult their medical officer on a confidential basis and to undergo counselling and voluntary testing if necessary.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am distressed to hear that Answer from the Minister. What steps will Her Majesty's Government take to ensure that those who have to treat injuries and wounds in the field are
1304
protected from HIV-infected body fluids, particularly if homosexuals and drug addicts, who are especially susceptible to HIV, are in future admitted into Her Majesty's forces?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the position with respect to those who have unfortunately become HIV positive as a result of accidents while in Her Majesty's employment is that they remain in that employment until their health deteriorates; then their employment is, if necessary, terminated on medical grounds. They receive full counselling, medical advice and treatment. Going slightly wider than the Question, compensation depends on the circumstances in which the HIV condition was received; where a person was infected; how it happened, and the consequences of that. If the MoD was in any way negligent, then it would expect to pay compensation.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this matter has potentially significant ramifications for the Armed Forces, not only in terms of the health of personnel but also in terms of morale and discipline? If a screening process is not practicable—I entirely understand what the Minister said in that connection—will he tell the House what estimate has been made of the incidence of HIV positive cases within the Armed Forces at the moment? How do the Armed Forces deal with such cases as and when they come to light to protect other personnel?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, as I should have thought the noble Earl would have known from his experience of these matters, the situation is not nearly as grave as he purports to make out. As I understand it, during the 11-year period since records were first kept, in 1986, there have been only 38 known cases among the forces. Of those 38, 16 serving personnel subsequently went on to develop AIDS; only six have so far died from that sad condition.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not obvious that if homosexual practices were authorised within the Armed Forces the number of men who were HIV positive would increase very considerably?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it is unhealthy for us to focus exclusively on homosexual practices as a source of AIDS. People can contract AIDS through all kinds of unfortunate circumstances that are totally outside their own control. They may, for example, be infected through receiving blood transfusions following a traffic accident, or when they visit their dentist. It is quite wrong automatically to consider that those with the HIV virus contracted it as a result of some sexual practice.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, what provision is there to ensure that somebody does not join the Army and then subsequently claim benefit for having contracted AIDS when in fact he already had the infection when he joined?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am not aware of any such cases. They would have to be examined on a case by

1305
case basis. If a member of the forces was found to be suffering from AIDS, as the noble Lords suggests, the forces would consider how the condition was contracted. If, for example, it had been contracted through drug abuse, there would be a possibility of attracting military discipline.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that blood transfusions are not safe?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, there are certainly unfortunate cases about which I should have thought the noble Baroness would have heard where people have contracted HIV from infected blood.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be extremely difficult to allow HIV positive soldiers into combat? If they were to be injured, it would be extremely unfair on their companions to have to treat them—not only would they be subject to injury from the enemy, but also from their own comrades.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, in extension of the reply I gave to the noble Baroness a moment ago, the infected blood can come from outside this country. HIV might be contracted following a traffic accident in another country, which is nobody's fault. With respect to the noble Lord's question, it is necessary to remind the House that, other than drug abuse, so far as I know the only way of acquiring the HIV virus is through an exchange of body fluids.

Gulf War Syndrome: Research
3.15 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the paper Gulf War Syndrome: is it due to a systemic shift in cytokine balance towards a Th 2 profile? published in The Lancet on 21st June 1997.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, officials in the Ministry of Defence have held discussions with the authors of the paper, Professor Graham Rook and Dr. Alimuddin Zumla, concerning their hypothesis. Whenever we receive suggestions for additional research into subjects which could have a bearing on Gulf veterans' illnesses, our advice is always that the researchers should submit a formal proposal to the Medical Research Council. I understand that Professor Rook and Dr. Zumla intend to submit a proposal for work to test their hypothesis in due course; we therefore await the MRC's advice.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that in the medical records of a number of Gulf veterans, signed by medical officers and stamped with the unit stamp, appear the following vaccines: botulism vaccine (as opposed to botulinum serum); ebola; rabies; rabbit
1306
fever; hepatitis A and B; encephalitis 1 and 2; meningitis; and three vaccines variously described as anthrax—V1, V2 and biological? If those are anthrax, some of the men will have received five anthrax vaccinations within two days, along with whooping cough vaccine. Will the noble Lord either affirm that these vaccines were used on some of the men some of the time, or nail the lie once and for all? If they were used, will he inform the researchers?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for giving me notice of part of her supplementary question. I must apologise for the length of the reply that it is appropriate for me to give.
The three vaccines used in the anti-biological warfare programme for British troops during the Gulf War were: anthrax; potassis as adjuvant to it; and plague. Troops were also given a number of routine vaccinations such as might be administered to travellers or health workers.
As to the specific diseases mentioned by the noble Countess, I am advised that no vaccines exist for three of these—lassa fever, ebola, and AIDS. Vaccines are available for Q fever, equine micro-encephalitis; rabbit fever (also called tularemia); and certain strains of botulinum toxin. So far as the department can ascertain, none of these vaccines was administered to British troops during the Gulf War.
However, in view of public concern about this issue, part of the forthcoming fact-finding work which is described in detail in the policy statement, Gulf Veterans' Illnesses: A New Beginning, published on 14th July, will examine the range of routine vaccines which may have been received by certain groups of service personnel deployed to the Gulf.
There were a very, very small number of British troops who were given a meningitis vaccine because of the special circumstances in which they found themselves. As I understand it, the numbers are in single figures.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. Not knowing what a "cytokine balance" is, or a "Th 2 profile", but looking at the Question, is Gulf War syndrome due to that, whatever it is?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his candour. I have not, unfortunately, the faintest idea what a lot of these terms represent. The position is that neither we, with our research programme, nor the Americans, with their much wider research programme, are yet in a position to understand how this syndrome was actually caused.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, difficult though the subject is, many of us in this House greatly admire the noble Countess, the Countess of Mar, for her persistence in her research and for her pursuit of the many causes of the problems? Can the Minister tell me and the House whether the veterans of the Gulf are having as much difficulty in obtaining their medical

1307
records from official sources as the members of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association have found? I speak as a patron of the organisation.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for enabling me to take the opportunity also to compliment the noble Countess on her diligence and perspicacity in pursuing those matters. The country owes her a debt of gratitude. I am sure that she would accept that under the guidance of my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, the position of Gulf veterans has been transformed in many ways.
I draw my noble friend's attention to the 20-point programme recently produced by my honourable friend in the House of Commons. For the first time, Gulf veterans are involved in a committee studying the work being done on their behalf.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is a matter on which we, from these Benches, wish to give the strongest possible support to the Government in their efforts to help Gulf War veterans? I appreciate that the MRC has yet to submit its advice on the question alluded to earlier. However, can the Minister add to the helpful paper issued by his department last week and say whether the symptoms complained of by some veterans actually correspond with the symptoms described in the article in The Lancet?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it would be an act of folly for me to try to add to anything that appeared in The Lancet article or a paper produced by my department only a few days ago. However, I shall look into the noble Earl's question and see whether I can write to him on it.
Lord Winston: My Lords, perhaps I may help my noble friend. The article in The Lancet was merely a hypothesis. As one who has contributed to the hypothesis column, I know that quite often it is a way of floating ideas which need proof. It is still an open question, an important one, but at the moment it is merely an idea.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, while I accept that the paper was a hypothesis, will the Minister confirm that some of the research work into the hypothesis will be done at Porton Down? Will he also accept that, in the words of one of the Gulf War veterans, to put the research with Porton Down is to liken it to asking a murderer to prepare his own prosecution case?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I can confirm that some of the work is being done at Porton Down. However, I do not accept the language quoted by the noble Countess. For the first time, the Gulf veterans have the protection that one of their number at least will be on the committee supervising the research work that is being done. I do not think that the Government can do more than that.

Business
3.22 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Government's proposals for a Welsh assembly.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Thursday 24th July to enable the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to be taken through all its stages that day.—(Lord Richard)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
3.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Referendum in Wales]:
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("in accordance with proposals set out in a White Paper laid before Parliament before this Act is brought into force which shall also clearly set out the implications for England of the government's proposals.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 16 at a rather awkward moment as it directly addresses matters to be covered in a Statement that will be made to the House shortly after debate on the amendment has been concluded. It also relates to the contents of the White Paper which convention dictates will not be available in the Printed Paper Office until the Secretary of State sits down in another place. So in a sense I have to go blindfold into the debate.
However, we have had a good deal of prior information. I had the experience—I shall not say it was a pleasant one—of waking shortly before seven o'clock this morning, turning on the television and being confronted by a programme concerned with what was to appear in the White Paper and an interview with the Secretary of State. A constitutional expert, commenting on what would happen as a result of the White Paper—at least, if the vote is affirmative—said that it would be the most important constitutional change in our arrangements in this country since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act in the 1920s. So what we are about is particularly important.
I was prompted to put down Amendment No. 16, with which we shall take two directly related amendments, Amendments Nos. 31 and 32, by some reported comments of the junior Minister at the Welsh Office, Mr. Peter Hain. He said that if Wales were to vote against a Welsh assembly in the referendum,
"it might soon become one of the few regions in Britain still to be ruled from London".
He went on to say that,
"political and business leaders in regionally-important cities such as Newcastle and Manchester will be encouraged to press for their own elected regional authorities if Scotland gets its own Parliament as widely expected".
I am never sure what to make of statements made by Mr. Peter Hain. He made the remarkable assertion that the great Korean company, LG, which is to move to Newport, was only doing so because the Welsh assembly was about to be created. That shows a degree of ignorance about the way in which investment decisions are taken which is startling.
However, we must take such statements seriously. We have had hints that we may hear more about proposals for what will happen to England. We have received information that the central government structure is to be reorganised so that there are regional arrangements. But what I do not think we know is whether they will take the form of elected assemblies in due course or what the Government's future intentions are. We hear a good deal from the Government about the need to place decision-making closer to people in every part of the United Kingdom. We therefore have the rather remarkable situation that we are proceeding by a series of steps—a fairly major step in Scotland, and, as we shall discover later this afternoon, a significant step in Wales—without knowing how those steps relate to future proposals for the government of England. It seems to me that that is an odd way of approaching the whole business of constitutional change.
I conceded a case to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, when we had a little exchange earlier at Report stage. I could concede the case for having elected assemblies if we had a totally different system of government in the United Kingdom. What worries me is that we have different systems of government in each part of the United Kingdom. I believe that that sets us on a road that is likely to create conflict. Therefore, when I put down the amendment, I simply sought to obtain further guidance as to what the Government's intentions are. I hope—though I have to say that the hope is limited—that we may hear more about it when we see the White Paper, but this House should insist upon knowing more about the Government's plans on the matter before we proceed much further with the Bill.
As to Amendments Nos. 31 and 32, one involves Scotland and the other Wales. Again, they have been overtaken in a sense by events. One subsection of Amendment No. 32 asks that the Secretary of State for Wales should publish a summary of the White Paper. In the weeks that have been given to us, we have been told that summaries of the White Paper are to be dispatched to every household in Wales. We have also been told that copies of the White Paper at a cheap price—namely,
1310
£3—are to be widely available to those who wish to read it. So perhaps we are making some progress on that point.
We also now know, told to the world outside in advance of this debate—perhaps the Government have not yet begun to take much notice of the rather helpful statement made by the Speaker in the other place that such statements ought to be made to Parliament rather than elsewhere—that the date of the referendum in Wales is to be 18th September. Subsection (1) of Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 asks for further enlightenment on the constitutional implications of what is proposed and, in the case of Wales, why there should be no tax-varying powers. It appears that the only reason ever given as to why the situation in Wales should be different from that in Scotland is that the proposal did not appear in the Labour Party manifesto. We heard on previous occasions that the Labour Party manifesto was to be treated as a sacred document. Now, apparently, we have a new doctrine. Previously we understood that everything in the manifesto was guaranteed to pass through Parliament without any question or examination. But there is now the doctrine that we must ask why something was not in it. So we do not know very much about why the powers should be given in the one case and not in the other.
I think we shall discover, when we hear the Statement later and see the White Paper, that some rather important constitutional issues are raised. The old issue is the role of the Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament. The old West Lothian question will not go away. I suspect that when we have heard what is said later, we shall want to ask more about that again. We shall also want to know more about the future role of the Secretary of State. On television this morning Mr. Ron Davies said quite firmly that the role of the Secretary of State would continue. I believe it was asserted during that programme that he was to be a conduit. I looked up the word "conduit" in the dictionary to make sure that I understood it. It is defined as,
"a channel or pipe for conveying liquids".
I suppose that that is a role for the Secretary of State but there will be no regulatory body to make sure that such pipes are not polluted. A conduit is also,
"a tube or trough for protecting insulated wires".
We can be quite certain that some electric shocks will pass up and down that particular cable as disputes break out between the assembly and the Government.
However, the Government declare and I expect will tell us later this afternoon that the role of the Secretary of State will not change. Interestingly enough, those who most strongly advocate change in Wales do not for one moment believe the assertion. The Western Mail is fighting a vigorous campaign on behalf of the assembly and has become a total advocate of it. But, in an article on 7th July, it declared:
"A reduction in the number of Welsh MPs is inevitable, given Wales's historic over-representation at Westminster. So is a workable redefinition of the role of the Secretary of State for Wales".

1311
It went on:
"The Welsh Secretary must retain a seat in Cabinet but will need to become more of an ambassador for Wales abroad and an effective liaison between the Assembly and Westminster".
That is an interesting definition of the role of the Secretary of State. Whether it justifies a Cabinet appointment is perhaps a matter of considerable doubt and debate.
An even more interesting document produced within the past few weeks is entitled Wales in Europe: The Opportunity Presented by a Welsh Assembly. It is published by the Institute of Welsh Affairs and the principal authors are Sir John Gray, a former ambassador, and John Osmond. They have been advised by a formidable group of people who generally favour setting up an assembly.
Therefore, I turn to that document to raise the constitutional issues because those who favour the assembly may be thought simply to be stirring up a hornets' nest. I know that whenever I raise these questions, people say, "You are against the whole thing and, of course, you make these points and there is no validity to them." I find the document particularly interesting. It addresses those questions very frankly and openly.
In section 3.6, the document refers to the Labour Party's document published in 1995 called Shaping the Vision and says that,
"the paper did not refer to the problems the Secretary of State would face once the responsibility for, and the staff concerned with, devolved matters had been lost and consequently the ability to speak authoritatively on those matters in Cabinet".
It is worth dwelling on the words:
"the ability to speak authoritatively on those matters in Cabinet".
The authors prefer the word "broker" to the word "conduit" which I have just used. They suggest that that should be the role of the Secretary of State. They openly concede that there is likely to be a change in the status of the Secretary of State for Wales. Indeed, they say:
"By the time [of] any change … (possibly abolition of the post and its incorporation into an Office for the Regions) Wales should have in place arrangements for influencing UK decision-making on EU matters which will survive the emergence of opposed majorities in Cardiff and London, and which will have confirmed that a nation like Wales should be treated differently within the United Kingdom to, say, an English region like East Anglia".
That takes us back to the question that I posed right at the start about what will happen to the English regions.
The document goes on to say that that relationship should be brokered by the Secretary of State for Wales. For 17 years of my life I was an insurance broker. It was a fairly basic principle that if you acted as a broker, you represented your client and could not be the underwriter at the same time. Here is a situation in which it is proposed that the person who is to be the broker will sit in the organisation which will either accept or reject the risk. That is not exactly a normal situation for a broker to be in. Apparently, he has to broke,
"general principles and practical arrangements between the Assembly and the Secretary of State, and between the latter and his/her Cabinet colleagues. This would allow the Assembly's concerns to be fed into the policy-making machine in Whitehall.
1312
It would also help lessen the likelihood of the Secretary of State losing the goodwill of either the Assembly or the UK Cabinet (or conceivably both)—something which, if continued over a long period, would put in jeopardy the whole devolution experiment".
Those are rather frank admissions by advocates of the assembly of some of the difficulties inherent in the whole experiment.
The authors of the document go on to address the problem of the Civil Service. Again, I have not yet seen the White Paper. But if, as we are told, the Welsh Office is to be divided, with the overwhelming majority of its civil servants going to the assembly and a tiny handful left behind to advise the Secretary of State, that again produces some interesting situations to be resolved. Section 3.10 of the document states:
"To explore this issue exposes some of the problems which would face the Secretary of State under devolution: those officials who owed their first loyalty to the Assembly would have no prescriptive right of access to the Whitehall machine; and on the contrary side, those officials who served a Welsh Secretary sitting in the London Cabinet would owe no constitutional loyalty to the Assembly. And if, at some future date, the majorities in the Assembly and Westminster were different, the problem would only be aggravated".
Incidentally, it may be thought to be unlikely that for some time to come the majorities would he different. If we are to have some form of proportional representation it is at least a possibility that that might happen sooner than some people anticipate. It is not something to be kicked away into the long grass as though in Wales it could never happen.
The authors analyse the difficulty about how the assembly would get its way over important matters in relation to Europe. They declare that again it is something that the poor old Secretary of State has to broker. They declare:
"The Welsh Assembly should have the right to send officials as observers to any working group meetings in Whitehall where matters devolved to Wales were being discussed, and to participate fully in preparatory meetings of the UK delegations to European Union meetings in similar circumstances".
They acknowledge that those arrangements may again create difficulties.
Finally, on the question of relationships with Europe, the authors say that the assembly should have access to the Council of Ministers; essentially, that it ought to be playing a key role in the deliberations of the Council. That is likely to cause great difficulty if the UK is taking up a negotiating position. There are real difficulties with Ministers having to bring into the process an assembly that may have different views. The unfortunate Secretary of State who will have been trotting backwards and forwards to Wales to listen to the assembly's views—he will apparently be entitled to sit in the assembly; whether or not he will be entitled to vote, I am not sure—will come hurrying back with the views of the assembly about European matters. The assembly may even have direct access to the Council of Ministers.
One can go on and explore other relationships. All indicate that we are going down a road where we can perhaps see the first bend but we cannot see round the corner. It is difficult to know what the long-term intentions of government are or what the long-time future

1313
is likely to provide. We are starting down a road which is very uncertain. I do not believe that the position of the Secretary of State for Wales—or indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland—can conceivably survive for long. They will not have a credible or acceptable role.
I believe also that we will run into the difficulties that we debated at some length 20 years ago when it is discovered that virtually all the powers that the present Secretary of State for Wales has over the whole field of domestic government are to be transferred to the assembly. The assembly will be deciding crucial issues fundamental to the work of most Members of Parliament in their constituencies. The Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament will not be able to decide those matters or have any great influence in Scotland or Wales—except when legislation is passing through Parliament—but will have a significant influence in England.
I return to where I started. If we are to go along a road where the bends are frequent and the future so uncertain, what will be the position in England? We need answers to that question as well as to the questions I have asked in relation to Wales and Scotland. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, perhaps I can first say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that the post of Secretary of State for Scotland was abolished in 1746 and re-established in 1885. Secretaries of State therefore can come and go.
The reality of Amendment No. 16 needs to be examined. In that spirit I drafted the following text, which may be of help. It reads thus:
"The Government's proposals for Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish devolution—the implications for England. The purpose of devolution is to meet the demand for a fairer system of government for the United Kingdom. The complaint is no less than the unnecessary domination of the United Kingdom by the English state. The pretence that the UK can only be governed as a unitary state has been finally exposed. It is now accepted that, in Hong Kong parlance, the UK is: one state—4 national systems. The Government recognise that the UK is a union state, and should be governed as such. In particular, it is recognised that the Scots Law has been altered, on many occasions, by the representatives of non-residents of Scotland, and without the consent of the representatives of Scottish residents.
In a spirit of reconciliation, and with the future of the UK in mind, the Government are putting forward these devolution proposals to meet the needs of a renewed Union. The lesson of the past 461, 290 and 196 years is that a union with England is worthwhile, so long as it does not extinguish national democracy in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Recognising that change must be managed, the Government have decided to start the renewal of the UK in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The plans are asymmetrical, and may not be the final move towards a mutually beneficial Union settlement. The Government plan to extend the programme to London and the English regions".
Perhaps that will commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and possibly—though I doubt it—to noble Lords on the Government Bench.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, we shall not know what the White Paper relating to devolution for Scotland says until the day after tomorrow. There have
1314
not been quite so many leaks in relation to that paper to date as there have been about the Welsh situation. But what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said in relation to the Secretary of State for Wales is probably even more true in the case of Scotland if Scotland is to have a legislative parliament. The role of Secretary of State for Scotland will be even more limited because presumably there will not be discussions in the other place relating to Scottish legislation at all whereas there will be in relation to Wales. Those same points therefore seem to apply.
The amendment suggesting that the implications for England in the Government's proposals for Wales should be clearly set out before people make a decision in the referendum also applies to Scotland. The implications for England of the proposals for Scotland will, if anything, be greater. It has been a difficult problem to discuss to date because the constitution unit, which produced the proposals on which the Scottish White Paper will be based, did not include the need to take account of the situation in the rest of the United Kingdom. The terms of reference simply asked the authors to think about a scheme for Scotland, sell it to the people of Scotland and sell it to the people of the day. That was the gist of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, who is well versed in these matters nowadays, may be able to confirm that.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness to say that I am a little confused. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is confusing the constitution unit with the Scottish Constitutional Convention, of which I am the co-chair. I have never been part of the constitution unit.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am speaking about the Scottish Constitutional Convention's terms of reference which the constitution unit quoted in its material. That interested me very much because the Scottish Constitutional Convention was not asked to consider the relationship between the scheme which it produced and the rest of the United Kingdom. The body which the noble Baroness chaired has not made recommendations about how its scheme would fit into the rest of the United Kingdom. If that problem has been addressed in the White Paper, it will have been done subsequently, and we have not yet seen it. All I am saying is that this amendment relating to Wales has the same implications for the arrangements for Scotland. It is therefore of great interest with regard to the arrangements for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has put down an important marker here as we await the Statement on the Welsh White Paper and, in a couple of days' time, on the Scottish White Paper. I can perhaps shorten his contribution by saying that my noble friend has drawn the Government's attention to the law of unintended consequences—in this case, the unintended consequences for England and for the United Kingdom as a result of the proposals which we are about to hear for Wales and, in a couple of days, for Scotland.

1315
I do not think my noble friend actually thought that part of the law of unintended consequences was that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, would intervene. Having listened to the noble Earl's speech, I sometimes think, when I hear the flavour of how he discusses these issues, that he would be more comfortable on the Cross-Benches representing the Scottish National Party. Perhaps he is able to square that circle better than I can.
There will be unintended obvious consequences for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, for this House and for the other place arising from these proposals. I shall certainly be measuring, as I have no doubt my noble friends will be measuring, these two White Papers not just against what they do to Scotland and Wales but what they do to England and to the rest of the United Kingdom.
We all know about the West Lothian question: the number of Scottish Members of Parliament and what is their role; the number of Welsh Members of Parliament and what is their role. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they acknowledge this position and have clearly stated that the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland and Wales coming to the United Kingdom Parliament should be reduced. When the legislation comes in the autumn I look forward to seeing them putting down amendments to achieve that. The problem could still arise of Scottish and Welsh MPs being involved in English matters when they have absolutely no say about the same matters relating to their own constituents. That is something that the White Papers ought to address.
I shall be pleasantly surprised—I shall go further: I shall be shocked and amazed—if the White Papers have a chapter in them saying "Consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom and how we shall resolve them". My noble friend has rightly drawn to our attention the need to have that chapter. If the Government are not prepared to write it, it will be up to some of the rest of us to write it for them.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He referred to Liberal Democrat Peers and their acceptance of a reduction in Scottish representation in the House of Commons. If he is correct, and amendments are put down to reduce the number of Scottish MPs as a result of the establishment of a Scottish parliament, will he support those amendments?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall have to look very carefully at those amendments along with other amendments which will be necessary to clarify the role of Scottish Members of Parliament. However, there is no doubt in my mind, and never has been, that there is a logic in the reduction of the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster. That, so to speak, narrows the angle for the problem of the West Lothian question coming to a head. There is an inescapable logic in doing that, just as there is an inescapable logic in the other point that my noble friend drew to our attention; namely, the role of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. Once again I understand the Liberal Democrats' position to be that those two offices will be abolished. I look forward to their amendments.
1316
I have to say, because I do believe in the unity of the United Kingdom, that it would be a mistake to abolish those two offices as it would mean that the United Kingdom Parliament would contain neither a Welsh nor a Scottish voice unless some other members of the Cabinet were from Scotland and Wales. For the current Government, that might not be a problem. But it could be a problem in the future, as it might have been at some stages in the past. I am intrigued—I hope the White Papers will address this—as to what the role will be of the Secretaries of State. Will they be the Scotland and Wales representatives in the Cabinet? If they are, will they be excluded when the Cabinet discusses confidential information only relevant to the government of the United Kingdom? They will be there as representatives of another government. Everyone worries about what will happen if different parties are involved. We do not have to wait until then. What will happen if it is the same party?
In Scotland we have had an interesting picture for some years of Strathclyde Regional Council and Glasgow City Council. They were run by the same Labour Party. I have to tell your Lordships that they did not appear to be blood brothers. There was a fair amount of squabbling between them. I do not think that Glasgow City Council—Glasgow District Council as it was then—would have been too happy to have a Strathclyde councillor at its inner cabal; nor would Strathclyde have been happy to have a Glasgow City councillor at its inner cabal. So I really do not think that it is just a question of what happens if the political outcomes of elections in the United Kingdom, Scotland and Wales begin to diverge; because their politics, the people who run them and their objectives will also begin to diverge. That divergence will make the position of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales hugely difficult if their roles in the Cabinet are merely to represent the interests of the Scottish government and the Welsh government.
I hope that the White Papers will address another point, which has not only constitutional but economic consequences. At the moment the Welsh Development Agency and Scottish Enterprise have a fairly good track record of which I know some parts of England are envious. Let us assume for a moment that the government of England—that is what it will be once the powers that it has currently for the whole of the United Kingdom are taken off to Wales and to Scotland—decide to be a little more robust about grabbing some inward investment. The Scots and the Welsh will promptly cry foul. I can assure your Lordships that they will promptly cry foul. They already do it. In the north-east of England the English grabbed Siemens. I use the word "grabbed" in the way it was portrayed in the Scottish press. If that happens in the future, who will hold the ring between the competing development agencies of the United Kingdom?
No one will be there to hold the ring. We shall not have a United Kingdom overview. Who will answer to Brussels if Brussels says that the Scottish and Welsh parliaments are going much further than they are

1317
allowed. They cannot, because they are not member states. Only the United Kingdom Government can do so. All these points require to be addressed.
As I said a few moments ago, I hope that there is a chapter in both White Papers addressing the questions about the knock-on effect on the rest of the United Kingdom and on England in particular. Frankly, I do not believe there will be, because the Government think that if they sweep this under the carpet everyone else will ignore it and nothing will happen. The trouble with dust swept under the carpet is that it remains there to cause problems in the years to come. That is exactly what will happen unless the Government face up to the consequences outlined by my noble friend in his introduction of these important amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall, if I may, deal with the amendments. They require the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales respectively to publish White Papers. I cannot remember how often my noble friend Lord Sewel and I have given the undertaking that we would do so. The Welsh White Paper is to be published today and the Scottish White Paper in two days' time. Those dates have been known for some while.
The further suggestion is that summaries of the relevant White Papers should be delivered to every elector at least two weeks before the referendum is held and that the Welsh White Paper would have to set out why the Welsh assembly is not to have tax-varying powers. We believe that that last point makes no sense. The purpose of the White Paper is to set out the Government's proposals so that the people of Wales are adequately informed of them before they are asked to vote. The people of Wales are not being asked to vote on whether the assembly should have tax-varying powers. The White Paper will set out the Government's proposals for a Welsh assembly; it will not deal with matters which do not form part of our proposals.
As regards Amendment No. 16, the Welsh White Paper will deal with relationships between the assembly and its partners in Wales, in Westminster, in Whitehall and in Europe. It is the people of Wales who will be most affected by the establishment of a Welsh assembly and that is why the people of Wales are being asked to vote on our proposals. Therefore, these amendments have been overtaken by events. There has never been any doubt about our proposals. They were set out in the manifesto and we are delivering them on time today and on Thursday.
The new clauses also propose the publication of summary versions of the White Papers to be distributed to every elector in Scotland and Wales respectively. There is little between us on that. We plan to produce leaflets outlining the Government's proposals for Scotland and Wales. We propose to distribute them to all households in Scotland and Wales respectively and we intend that they should be with the voters in good time. Of course, one cannot guarantee a precise timetable given the vastness of the task that is to be carried out. We shall also be
1318
producing them in Braille, on audio tape, in Gaelic, Cantonese, Urdu, Punjabi, Hindi and Gujerati. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we are making every reasonable effort—bearing in mind that all this costs money—to inform the electorate about the proposals on which they will be asked to vote. I hope that the noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, once again we have had a non-answer from the Minister. It is quite extraordinary that when one puts questions, as we have, about arrangements for England and the other matters one does not get a single response that is relevant. I now have the White Paper. It has just been handed to me. I have had a moment to glance at it. It confirms that the Government intend to keep the position of the Secretary of State for Wales.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I hesitate to intervene, but the noble Lord was to speak to the amendments, but the whole of his speech was devoted to other issues and not the amendments.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I suggest that if the noble Lord reads the amendments he will see that they specifically deal with the matters that I raised.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Does he agree with me that a reading of the amendments shows that, in the third line, Amendment No. 16 states,
"clearly set out the implications for England of the government's proposals"?
That is also shown clearly in the fourth line of Amendment No. 31, which states,
"indicating the potential constitutional implications of the establishment of such a Parliament".
Amendment No. 32 states,
"including the reasons why it should not have tax-varying powers and indicating the potential constitutional implications of the establishment of such an Assembly".
I believe that my noble friend will agree with me that he did address these issues, as I did. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has not read the amendments. Nor has the Minister read the amendments. He is clearly of the view that one does not need to answer the debate at all and all that one needs to do is to answer the amendments, but he did not even do that. If my noble friend says that he believes that to be totally inadequate, I absolutely agree with him.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord is replying to the amendment. Perhaps I may respectfully remind your Lordships that this is Report stage.
A noble Lord: A speaker can give way.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I was observing that I have had only a moment to glance at the White Paper, which refers to the intention of the Government to keep the Secretary of State, but does not have a section—as my

1319
noble friend suggested that it would not—as to what the future constitutional arrangements and their effect on England might be.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am a little baffled. I have been several times to the Printed Paper Office in order to obtain a copy of the White Paper and it is not on release. Are we not subtly disadvantaged by having one Member of the House who has it, good friend of mine though he is?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I passed the White Paper to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It was released as soon as the Minister sat down in the other place. If the Printed Paper Office has not provided it then I have not followed the regulations.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, that is perfectly correct. The White Paper was embargoed until 15.30 hours and we are now well past that. It has been handed to me and I believe that I am entitled to refer to it. I have not had a chance to read it, but it does not address the issues referred to in the amendment.
I know that the Liberal Democrat Party now believes that its principal role is defending the Government. Indeed, sometimes during debates it appears to be its only role now. The Liberal Democrat Party defends the Government much more vigorously than anyone on the Labour Benches now defends them. Before he takes that line, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, should read the amendments. It is positively insulting that the Minister should get up—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, —
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, no, I am not going to give way again because I want to get on. I want to make one particular point. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who replied to this debate, replied to the two points that I acknowledged at the start had been dealt with, because we are to have a Statement this afternoon. He did not address the other issues at all. It is an outrage that this House should be treated in that way. Therefore I press my amendment.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Burnham, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cadman, L.

Attlee, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Beloff, L.

Carew, L.

Birdwood, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blatch, B.

Carnock, L.

Boardman, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Brentford, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L

Brightman, L.

Chesham, L.

1320

Clanwilliam, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L. [Teller.]

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cross, V.

Milverton, L.

Cuckney, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Monson, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Davidson, V.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Nelson, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elles, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fisher, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Forbes, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gainford, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pike, B.

Gisborough, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Gray, L.

Reay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rees, L.[Teller.]

Harding of Petherton, L.

Renton, L.

Harrowby, E.

Renwick, L.

Holderness, L.

Rotherwick, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Saltoun of Abrnethy, Ly.

Howe, E.

Sandford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Savile, L.

Jopling, L.

Sharples, B.

Kenilworth, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lindsay, E.

Swinfen, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas, L.

Torphichen, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Westbury, L.

Whitelaw, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Alderdice, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Annan, L.

Ezra, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkland, V.

Berkeley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Blease, L.

Gallacher, L.

Blyth, L.

Gilbert, L.

Borrie, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Glasgow, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Grantchester, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Grenfell, L.

Chandos, V.

Grey, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hampton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hanworth, V.

David, B.

Hardie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Haskel, L.

Desai, L.

Hayman, B.

Dixon, L.

Headfort, M.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Donoughue, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Hooson, L.

Eatwell, L.

Howell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

1321

Hoyle, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hughes, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Rea, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kennet, L.

Rochester, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Russell, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Leathers, V.

St. Davids, V.

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Sandwich, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Serota, B.

Lockwood, B.

Sewel, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Simon, V.

McConnell, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Slim, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McNally, L.

Stallarad, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Thomas of Gryfe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Molloy, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Monkswell, L.

Thurso, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nathan, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Varley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Parry, L.

Whitty, L.

Peston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Plant of Highfied, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("But an alteration in a register of electors under section 11(1) or (2) or 56 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (correction of registers and registration appeals) shall not have effect for the purposes of the referendum unless it is made before the start of the period of eleven days ending with the date of the referendum.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2 line 21, after ("with") insert ("paragraph 11 of Schedule (Conduct of the referendums, &c.) and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("() An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Welsh Assembly
4.17 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Government's proposals for creating an assembly for Wales.
"This Government believe that, in the United Kingdom, too much power is centralised in the hands of too few people. We believe that there is too little freedom for people in each part of the United Kingdom to decide their own priorities. Our manifesto made clear our intention to give Britain a modern constitution fitting a modern and progressive country. We believe it is right to bring decisions closer to the people, to open up government, to reform Parliament and to increase individual rights.
"Madam Speaker, the White Paper I am publishing today marks a major step forward in the achievement of our proposals for Wales. We propose to create a democratically elected assembly that will give the people of Wales a real say in the way public services in Wales are run.
"Since the Welsh Office was set up over 30 years ago, there has been a progressive devolution of administration to Wales. As Secretary of State for Wales I am responsible for taking decisions about health, education, economic development, roads, planning and many other public services that matter to people's lives. I am accountable to this House. But our procedures here are too often seen as remote from the day to day realities of devolved administration.
"Madam Speaker, this Government are committed to bringing decisions closer to the citizen. Our aim is to improve public services by making them more responsive to the needs and the views of people in Wales.
"Wales will continue to share the same framework of laws as England, including the primary legislation made for it by Parliament; and it will remain firmly part of the United Kingdom. But the new assembly will assume many of the functions and powers which I currently exercise. It will have at its disposal the staff and budget of the Welsh Office—now totalling £7 billion. It will determine policies and set standards for major public services. It will bring forward secondary legislation where necessary to implement these policies. It will assume responsibility for unelected bodies in Wales and have powers to reform them and bring them to account. This means that in future decisions on schools, health care and other key services will be taken by people directly elected by, and accountable to, Welsh voters, and responsive therefore to their views. And we will be equipping the assembly to set a new economic agenda for Wales, focused on Welsh needs and priorities, to create the new jobs and industry that Wales still badly needs. Above all else the assembly will provide a clear and distinctive voice for Wales.

1323
"Madam Speaker, the Government intend that the assembly should be a new kind of elected body, open to all talents and close to the people it serves, working in partnership with central and local government, for the benefit of all parts of Wales. It is this Government's intention to forge a new kind of politics. The assembly will therefore be based on principles of partnership, democracy and inclusiveness.
"Partnership. First, the assembly will improve the government of Wales by working in partnership with others, and especially with Welsh local government. That partnership will respect the legitimate role of each of the tiers.
"Madam Speaker, in making this point, I thank my honourable friend the Member for Rhondda for his most helpful paper on the proper relationship between the assembly and local government. Let me tell him and the House: the assembly will promote and foster local government in Wales; the assembly will regularly review with local government how effectively that commitment is being observed; the assembly will not be given any new power to take functions away from local government; but it will be given powers to transfer functions from quangos to local government. The establishment of the assembly gives local government a new opportunity to reassert its rightful place as an equal partner in the governance of Wales. The assembly will also need to work closely with other key partners, including business and industry and the European institutions. The business community will gain easier access to key decision-makers in the assembly as it pursues its new economic agenda; and the assembly will listen to the voice of business and respond quickly and effectively to its needs.
"The assembly will foster a new relationship with Europe. The administration of European structural funds is a matter of great importance to us in Wales. This responsibility will pass to the assembly which will, in consultation with the Commission, be able to determine priorities for European funding in Wales. Assembly members with executive responsibilities and their officials may, where appropriate, have a role to play in delegations to the Council of Ministers as agreed by the UK Minister leading those negotiations.
"Democracy. I turn to the second principle: democracy. For the first time the key decisions for Wales will be made by people elected by and democratically accountable to the people of Wales. The executive committee will provide the political leadership for the assembly and will be subject to scrutiny through the processes of question and debate. Under the assembly, policies which matter to people in Wales—education, health, and other key public services—will be determined in Wales.
"I now turn to the quango state. In recent years the growth in the number of unelected bodies and some of their activities have caused great concern in Wales. Our proposals for a new and democratic structure of government in Wales will address that concern. The assembly will be given sweeping powers to
1324
democratise and if necessary further restructure quangos that remain. That is a major package of reform, but in the Government's view the need to start the reform of the quango state in Wales is too urgent to be left to await the assembly. Action is required now even before the assembly is established—a point which has been made forcefully by my right honourable friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney in earlier debates. I agree. The Bill establishing the assembly will by merging the WDA, the DBRW and the Land Authority for Wales, create a new economic development agency for Wales. It will be a powerhouse to promote the economic regeneration of Wales. It will also transfer Tai Cymru's staff and functions to the Welsh Office and wind up that body.
"We will also wind up Cardiff Bay Development Corporation by March 2000 while securing the continuing development of Cardiff Bay; reduce the number of training and enterprise councils in Wales from six to four; and make important changes to NHS administration. The Government have already announced that the number of NHS trusts will be reduced. Today I can tell the House that the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority will be wound up and their functions transferred. Taken together, Madam Speaker, these proposals will have a profound effect. Unelected bodies will be reduced in number before the assembly is established and placed under proper democratic control and scrutiny once the assembly is in place. No longer will our key public services lie in the hands of political appointees operating in secret and accountable to no one in Wales.
"Inclusiveness. Madam Speaker, the third principle I mentioned was inclusiveness. The assembly we propose will have 60 members. Forty of them will be directly elected from constituencies, with 20 additional members to provide an element of proportionality. Voters will be able to vote both for constituency candidates and for party lists for additional members. The assembly will reflect all of Wales in its membership and in its working practices. Its committees will give all political parties in the assembly the opportunity to make their distinctive contribution to its work. And our proposals for regional committees will give all parts of Wales a stake in the assembly's success. I want people of real ability and commitment representing the widest possible range of interests to serve in the new assembly. In particular, although this is not a matter for legislation it is vital that we see greater participation by women in public life in Wales, and I look forward to seeing a high proportion of women as assembly members.
"The United Kingdom. Madam Speaker, it has been suggested by members of the official Opposition that our proposals in some way threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom. That is simply wrong. Parliament will continue to be responsible for primary legislation for Wales. There will be no reduction in Wales's representation in Parliament as a result of our

1325
establishing the assembly. The Secretary of State will continue to represent Welsh interests in the Cabinet and will participate fully in the Government's formulation of policy—and, through his links with the assembly, will ensure that Wales's voice is more clearly heard on issues of major importance to Wales. In the same way, assembly officials, who will be members of the Home Civil Service, will work in close partnership with officials in other government departments in developing policy proposals. Wales will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. Let there be no doubt of that.
"Conclusion. Madam Speaker, on 18th September we intend to submit these proposals to the people for their endorsement. I am making arrangements for the White Paper to be widely available throughout Wales. A leaflet describing our plans will go to every household and the White Paper text will be made available on the Internet. Everyone in Wales will have the opportunity to know about our plans and to contribute to the debate in advance of the referendum. The Welsh assembly is a key element in this Government's project for a new Britain with strong communities, a modern constitution and a confident place in the world. In this new Britain, Wales will have its voice. These proposals are right for Wales and right for Britain, and I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for repeating the Statement made in another place and for his great courtesy in helping me to obtain a copy of the White Paper in time to have at least a glance through it before the Statement was repeated. It appears that the Welsh Office's van had forgotten that the House of Lords was here. If we come to the Bill that is to implement devolution I suspect that it will have good cause to remember where the House of Lords is for many long nights.
In terms of getting the information out to the wide world, I was particularly interested to note that this would be published on the Internet. I took the trouble to look at the Welsh Office site before I entered the Chamber to see whether this great event was presaged. The only statement that I could find on the subject was that press announcements had been withdrawn for the period of the general election. There may be a little updating to do.
Those of us who have been lucky enough have now received copies of the White Paper. I believe that it is available in the Printed Paper Office. One can now see the mess of pottage for which the Welsh are being asked to exchange their birthright. One sees at considerable length the dishonest question that is to be posed to that great country. On the one hand one is told that nothing in this threatens the Union. On the other hand if one happens to be a Plaid Cymru supporter one
1326
is told that this is the first step on the road to independence. There appears to be no shame about presenting those two answers to the same question.
The White Paper is entitled A Voice for Wales. It should be A Lost Voice for Wales. All that will be left at the end is an off-stage croak. It is as if the Government had invited a member of a great Welsh choir to step forward and take a solo part, only to tell him afterwards that he would have to sing the solo part in a locked room in the basement. Wales will be sidelined in government and Parliament. It will be a sad day if the proposition is ever agreed to.
I shall concentrate on asking the Minister some questions. I do not necessarily expect to receive answers today. I hope that he will be able to reply to me in writing before our debate—say, by next Tuesday evening—so that we can follow up the points which concern us.
I turn first to a subject which will be of considerable interest to the House; that is, the mechanism by which power will be devolved to the assembly. We are faced with a wide range of secondary legislation over which it is proposed the assembly should have power. Some of the secondary legislation has a great deal of flexibility in it; other parts are narrow. How will we set about widening that discretion so that the assembly can make use of it? Are we to be faced with an enormous Henry VIII clause so that it can all be done by secondary legislation, perhaps by the assembly itself, within some rather loosely defined power?
We are told that Welsh legislation will continue to pass through this Parliament. On what sort of timetable? How will it be done? Who is to promote it? Who is to ensure that it receives the precedence that it should have in the scheme of things? The White Paper says that the assembly will examine proposals for UK legislation to see what relevance they have for Wales. When will it do that? Will legislation be released to the Welsh assembly in advance of its coming to Parliament? Does that constitute a promise to publish all Bills several months in advance so that they can be looked at by the assembly?
It would be helpful if the Government, in their publicity, would make clear the limitations of what is being proposed for Wales. An interesting article in today's Western Mail contains two equal and opposite misunderstandings. The teachers have put together a "Teachers say Yes" campaign for Wales. They had a conference yesterday. One speaker said:
"We would not have seen the imposition of nursery vouchers; we would not have seen the opting out of schools"
if there had been a Welsh assembly. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not the case. Those laws would have been passed in this Parliament and would have been effective in Wales. All that the Welsh assembly could have done would have been to ensure that they were pursued properly in Wales. The Welsh assembly could not have opted out of the legislation.
The second misconception in the article is the statement that the Welsh assembly could channel more funds to schools. That is equal and opposite. There is a widespread misconception that the Welsh assembly will

1327
not interfere with local government; that local government will continue to choose how much money goes to schools. That is clearly not the opinion of the teachers. Nor is it my opinion, having read the White Paper. It is clear to me that what is proposed for local authorities is that they should be subject to the power of the assembly. The assembly should decide how much money they are getting; should be able to ring fence what they are doing; and should be able to give directions which amount to pretty thorough control of local authorities. I should be delighted if the Minister would confirm that my understanding is right.
It would be helpful also if the Minister could outline the limitations that there will be on the assembly's powers which justify the policy of continuing with 40 Welsh MPs. It is clear that that policy will be called into question if some people's views of how wide the powers go are supported. As I understand it, the reason why the number of Welsh MPs is not to be reduced is that the powers are limited. A restatement of that by the Minister would be welcome.
Much was made of the quango state, although the reduction, as I see it, is from 80 to 71, which is not a major reduction. It rather gives the lie to a great deal of the rhetoric used in the run-up to the White Paper. Will the Minister confirm that what is at issue is not the power of the quangos passing to the assembly, but power over the quangos passing to the assembly? By and large, they will continue to exist. If they do not continue to exist, that is because, for the most part, they will have been merged with other quangos.
Will the Minister also confirm that the power to appoint members to those quangos as well as the power to hold the quangos to account will rest with the assembly? Is that not a rather surprising conflict of interest with which we deal adequately in our Parliament by having the appointment by Ministers and the questioning by the PAC? Why does the Minister believe it to be satisfactory that appointment and holding to account should be done by the same body? Will the Minister enlighten me as to the continuing role, or otherwise, of the NAO when it comes to the affairs of the assembly and of the quangos which it will control?
A little noticed—I do not believe that it has been widely presaged—element in the White Paper is the advent of regional committees of the assembly, representing the different bits of Wales. That surely must be a recipe for dissent between the different parts of Wales and a mechanism to allow it to happen and to encourage it. Will the Minister enlighten us as to how those regional committees will dovetail with the all-Wales committees, and how that process might be made to work without the dissent which seems inevitable?
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell, in his recent amendment, made much of the fate of the Secretary of State for Wales. When he has a chance to read the whole of the White Paper he will see that that creature is not to be a broker; he is, at best, to be a bookie's runner. He will have immense difficulty deciding where his loyalty lies. Is he a member of the Cabinet and responsible to the Cabinet under collective
1328
responsibility or is he someone who is loyal to Wales? When the two take different views, where will his heart and voice be? Surely it will quickly result in neither side believing that he is one of them, and his becoming totally excluded and irrelevant.
The assembly's powers to direct and control the cash flowing to local authorities; to control what they are doing; to cap them or not cap them, as it chooses in the future; to set rates and business rates, amount in the end, if I read it aright, to the assembly having tax raising powers. If the assembly can withdraw money from local authorities for its own purposes, leaving those authorities to make up the money through the council tax, that is just as much tax raising as if it had power over income tax. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why, in that case, the Welsh are not being offered the second question that the Scots are.
An interesting variety of proportional representation is proposed for the elections. I am sure that it will greatly please the Liberal Democrat Party. I am not sure that I understand its details. What surprises me is that it is to be based on Welsh Euro-constituencies. Is it not true that by the time the assembly comes to be in place there will be no such constituencies? Wales will be all one region within the list system. So has the Government's thinking become a little confused as to what it will be based on? Where are the powers over the police which the Prime Minister promised to Wales only last week? I see no mention at all of them in the White Paper.
I have one last question: will Peers be entitled to vote for this? That is of local interest and I have failed to pick it up in the White Paper. As the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said in speaking to my noble friend's amendment, the Government have out-Chinesed the Chinese with one country, four systems. Indeed, why stop there? The Government will not stop there because there will be a different system for London and it may be that the different regions of England will be able to choose their own system.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was suggesting that that is the situation at the present moment rather than what the Government are proposing.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is clearly what the Government are proposing and they are proposing to take it further. I find their reasons for this proposition entirely inscrutable. However, we shall subject the inscrutable to scrutiny to make it suitably acceptable.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am sure that I can put the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, at peace straightaway. I am sure that Peers can vote in the Welsh assembly provided that they are elected.
I add my thanks to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. First, I should like to congratulate the Government on producing this White Paper. I barely know the Secretary of State for Wales but I have the impression that he is a very direct, straightforward chap who is a determined person. He has delivered what he has been working so hard to do

1329
for several years in Wales. It is somewhat refreshing to have that direct approach rather than the PR approach which we had so often from the previous government.
I say that I congratulate the Government but, as they are aware, the proposals do not begin to achieve what my party stands for; that is, a domestic parliament for Wales. Our support for the Government is based on the fact that we much prefer the Government's proposals to the status quo because the status quo had become virtually intolerable in Wales. We had so many quangos, a disproportionate number of which represented Conservative interests. That was what was so objectionable about it.
The electors of Wales demonstrated their disapproval of that in the election results. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be very happy to know that if the Government's proposals are approved in Wales in the referendum, at least it will ensure that the Conservative Party has some representation in the government of Wales which otherwise it might not have at all either in the other place or, indeed, at the result of the next election.
I wish to ask the Government a certain number of questions on this matter. Obviously the greatest virtue of this proposed new body is that it will be a forum in Wales and it will be the first directly elected forum that we have ever had in our history. But the second very important matter concerns the quangos. As I understand it, the Government will abolish or amalgamate some of them before the next election. However, I do not read in the White Paper and do not understand that the assembly will have the power to abolish quangos. I believe that gradually we could do away with all the quangos in Wales. From a business point of view, I am a great believer in having managers to manage and who are responsible to somebody. That somebody should be the elected body in Wales. Therefore, I do not see the need for quangos as such if we are to have a properly run assembly.
As the noble Lord pointed out in the Statement:
"Since the Welsh Office was set up over 30 years ago, there has been a progressive devolution of administration to Wales".
That is the answer to many of the criticisms made from the Opposition Benches. Devolution is an evolutionary process. I think I am right in saying that in 1964, when the Welsh Office was set up, it had 260 civil servants. That coincides almost exactly with the number of civil servants now employed in the regional offices set up by the Conservative Government in England in 1994. They now number 260 on average.
Therefore, that devolution has been started in England, which was already apparent in Wales before 1964 when the Welsh Office came into being. We may see in Wales the development of a means of having regional government which could be extended to England because the basis for it already exists there and was set up by the last government. However, modestly, they do not seem to take any credit for it. It may be that they wish to hide that devolutionary tendency from the electorate. I do not know.
1330
The third matter is the relationship of the Welsh assembly to Europe. Obviously the European Structural Funds, which are so important in the development of Europe, are disbursed regionally. But what exactly will be the power of the Welsh assembly? For example, is it envisaged that there will be a European committee of the Welsh assembly which will specifically and directly deal with Brussels on those matters? With regard to membership of the assembly, I understand that the Secretary of State for Wales is to be an ex officio member. That is almost certainly part of an evolutionary process because I cannot see that there will forever be a Secretary of State. In time, that office will disappear.
Are MPs to be allowed to be members of the assembly? I very much hope not. In the White Paper it is said that it is intended that members of the assembly should regard it as a full-time occupation. I hope that Members of Parliament at Westminster will not be able to duplicate matters and become members of the assembly. Nor do I think that councillors from the various local councils in Wales, except for the community councils, should become members of the assembly. I do not believe that there should be, as it were, a clash of interest. It would be very much better for the assembly if it were independent of both national and local government, as far as that is possible.
The regional committees proposed will clearly he very important. There is an oft-repeated suggestion that the rural parts of Wales—and north Wales in particular—will be dominated by south Wales. Will the Government bear in mind that it is not so much a question of the division of north Wales and south Wales as a division between the industrial areas and the rural areas. For example, there will be a great deal to be said for the mid-Wales region of the five old counties—Cardiganshire, Meirionnydd, Montgomery, Brecon and Radnor—being subject to one regional committee because they have similar problems as opposed to the problems of north Wales or south Wales taken as a whole. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to confirm that there is no rigid thinking on those matters in relation to the regional committees.
When the Welsh Office is divided—and I refer to the majority of civil servants who come directly under the assembly—will there be a means of ensuring that the executive side works very well because in Parliament Ministers deal with the executive side of government while we deal with the legislative side? The Welsh assembly will deal with secondary legislation but if it is to control most of the civil servants in Wales by what means will they ensure that they are answerable to the assembly in an executive way? That matter needs a good deal of thought and guidance by experts.
I believe that the White Paper sets out exactly what the Government said they would produce. I have always made it clear that if the choice were mine I should have a different White Paper, as I am sure would the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, from his viewpoint. I believe

1331
that the proposal is what the people of Wales are likely to accept. It is what is on offer and it is very much better for Wales than the status quo.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his opening remarks. I appreciate his courtesy. If there was a misunderstanding about the journey that a particular copy of the White Paper followed at a particular time, I am happy to say that it was no more than that. I am also happy about the way he has approached his responsibilities vis-à-vis mine. I am grateful for his suggestion that if I wish to give mature consideration to particular matters I may write to him. I promise him, I dare say to the horror of the officials, that should I do so he will have the letter by Tuesday evening, as he graciously suggested.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for his introductory remarks, in particular about the Secretary of State for Wales. Whether you agree with him or not, what you see is what you get! As the noble Lord said, it is a refreshing change and for the avoidance of doubt perhaps I may say that I agree with him.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the question of Peers. Reference to that is to be found in the White Paper at page 37, paragraph C.7. It states:
"Members of the House of Commons, the European Parliament, or local authorities, and non-judicial members of the House of Lords. will be eligible to stand as candidates for the Assembly"—
and this is important in the context of Wales—
"as will ministers of religion".
Perhaps I may attach my answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and extend to him the privilege that was offered to me by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Members of Parliament will be able to stand as members of the assembly. That is made plain in the citation that I gave from paragraph C.7.
Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is correct in indicating that it is anticipated that membership of the Welsh assembly would be a full-time job. Ultimately, it will be a matter for individual political parties to decide whether it is sensible and appropriate that, for instance, an MEP ought to stand for election to the Welsh assembly. Different parties have different views. In the Northern Ireland context, the Reverend Ian Paisley is a Member of another place and a Member of the European Parliament. Such issues are best left to individual party and personal decisions.
Both noble Lords raised the question of the committees. It is intended that there shall be four different types. First, there will be subject committees, which will be responsible for particular areas of policy such as education or health. Secondly, there will be scrutiny committees, which will need to scrutinise proposed assembly orders or financial matters, therefore ensuring that the appropriate rules are properly followed.
Thirdly, there will be regional committees providing different parts of Wales with opportunities to express their views on matters of local concern. I deal specifically with the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. We have very much in mind the problems
1332
that he outlined. The intention would be to have four regional committees; one for north Wales, one for mid-Wales, one for the south west and one for the south east. I believe that his point is well made and that there ought to be the most careful consideration with present bodies and local authorities to determine precisely where the boundaries should be drawn. We do not approach the question with a closed mind. We believe that those with experience of Welsh affairs across the spectrum have a useful input into the decisions that are made about the boundaries.
Fourthly, there will be an executive committee, which will provide political leadership for the assembly in the same way as does the Cabinet. I confirm that the Secretary of State will be a member of the assembly, able to take part in the deliberations but not to vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about the police function. It is well known that the police function is a Home Office function. It is intended to remain with the Home Office. However, perhaps I may give a sensible, foreseeable example. If there were serious questions about police practices in any part of Wales, or in any area of Welsh life, it may well be that the assembly would wish to concern itself with what might have gone wrong. I do not say that in the sense that it would be able to direct police practice, which is firmly lodged in the present arrangements for the police forces. However, I believe that it is legitimate for such an assembly at least to ask for conversations and for an exchange of views with the appropriate police authorities, even perhaps with the appropriate chief constable. I see no difficulty or problem with that if one approaches the matter on the basis that I believe the majority of people in Wales will approach it; namely, that we want to make it work.
Of course, we can be gloomy and say that Wales is fit for no better control over its affairs than it presently has. We can turn our backs on the opportunity that we now have; the first opportunity to have accountable, devolved, representative government in Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, rightly said. It is true—it has been said many times and it remains true—that there are devolved powers but they are not accountable in a full sense to the people of Wales. They have been unduly obscured. They have been kept private and secret, although the sums involved are vast—£7 billion or so of public money per year.
We believe that a sea change has occurred in Wales in the past 20 years. We believe that the proposal is what the people of Wales want. They want a decent consideration of their opinions. I invite your Lordships to accept that they do not say that in any sense of wishing to be aggressive or confrontational. Earlier this week, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made a point which stuck in my mind. Wales as a country has matured and changed and developed confidence during the past 10 years or so. He is right in saying, "Go and look at Cardiff." It is now a metropolitan, European city. We do not look down on anyone.
I value what England has to offer to the United Kingdom. I have lived here for most of my adult life and I know that it has enormous qualities of fairness and

1333
decency. The rest of the world has been able to learn from it. We believe in the Union but we believe in diversity. When noble Lords opposite speak of their Scottish experiences and traditions I respect them. I have been to Scotland only once—and that was only for the day!—but I know that Scotland is different. It does not claim to be better—at least, not too obviously—but it has variety to offer. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that this is a mess of potage and that the birthright is being sold but I must most gently disagree. We are not selling our birthright; we are recovering it. I stress again, because there are mischief-makers about, that this is in no sense hostile to any other people who live in the United Kingdom, which we hope will continue to subsist.
Specific questions were asked about the control of local authority expenditure and the functions of the present Secretary of State. They will be transferred to the assembly. We say that that will democratise the current arrangements. We say that we are looking for a spirit of mutual respect between the local authorities in Wales and the new assembly. I am happy to repeat that no member of a local authority in Wales need fear that his or her powers will be decreased—quite the opposite is true. As regards tax, the arrangements currently in place whereby the Secretary of State determines the size of the local government settlement will transfer to the assembly.
A specific question—I believe it to be important—was asked about the National Audit Office. There will be an auditor general for Wales who will be supported by the National Audit Office. We are entirely in agreement with the spirit behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Of course we need to be absolutely certain that the arrangements for accountability of public spending are properly in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked how power will be devolved. It is proposed that power will be devolved by a transfer order to be available for scrutiny before the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope that your Lordships think that is appropriate.
A further question was asked about control of the quangos. These bodies spend a vast amount of public money. I believe there is serious concern in Wales about accountability and whether or not the money is appropriately controlled. The assembly will be able to set the strategic framework for the quangos, make appointments to the quangos and fund them. Ultimately, it will be able to limit their powers.
We shall have to await the conclusion of those eligible to vote in Wales. I believe that it will be a positive conclusion. I believe that we have a fair wind for a voyage which will be exciting and which will have a productive outcome for those who care about the government of Wales.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating a Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Ron Davies. Before I ask a number of questions I declare an interest
1334
as the chair of two bodies, one of which is to be transferred into the assembly; namely, the Welsh Language Board. The board welcomes that as a democratisation of its activity. Indeed, it decided at its last meeting to hold its future meetings in public as part of this new spirit of Welsh democracy. The other body, Sgrîn, is partly funded by the Welsh Development Agency.
In asking questions about this document I emphasise that, contrary to what my noble friend Lord Hooson might have implied, this is a White Paper which I unreservedly welcome. This is a White Paper which the Government promised and the Government have delivered it. More than that, it sets out a detailed and extremely intelligent structure of government for Wales. Contrary to what has been implied by some Conservatives opposite, it is not a staging post to anywhere else; it is a viable system of government in its own right. It is as stable, and can prove to be as stable in my view, as the Welsh Office in its great days under the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell.
This paper proposes for Wales three exciting developments. I am impressed by the commitment to regional devolution within Wales. Does the Minister foresee that there will be direct links between the regional committees of the assembly within Wales and local government, and also the training and enterprise councils and indeed other agencies which are currently established as joint agencies with local government?
My next question relates to the relationship with Europe. My understanding is that the assembly will elect members of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union. That is to be warmly welcomed. It was an unsatisfactory situation—although my own party, Plaid Cymru, benefited from it—when members were nominated. Now that there is a directly elected tier in Wales—if this is approved in the referendum—there will be direct election from the assembly to the Committee of the Regions.
Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention that the assembly will scrutinise European legislation in draft form in detail; that the assembly will be able to continue to develop the existing WEC arrangements in Brussels should it so wish; and that the assembly will be able to have its own independent representation in parallel to representation of the current UK structure in Brussels?
My next point relates to the issue of equal opportunities. How do the Government intend to ensure that their objective and ours of greater equality of representation within the assembly is pursued? It is crucially important that this body is seen to represent the whole of Wales and that the gross gender inequality of the whole of Welsh politics should be urgently addressed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. Although I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and I have ever been members of the same political party we still have our different regards and different views about Wales. He is right to make the point that the Welsh Language Board

1335
which has done so much good in Wales has moved with the times. As he rightly said, the fact that the board is now holding its meetings in public is a reflection of a changed world.
The assembly members with executive responsibilities, and officials, may have a role to play in delegations, for example to the Council of Ministers, as agreed by the UK Minister leading those negotiations. The Secretary of State will continue to be able to participate at meetings of the Council of Ministers and, where appropriate, represent the United Kingdom on certain matters on the same basis as now. The Welsh assembly will have at its disposal the staff of the Welsh Office. We believe that there will be sufficient back-up available properly to discharge duties in addressing these European issues. The Welsh assembly will be able to scrutinise EU documents and it will be able to convey its views to the Secretary of State and to the UK delegations in Brussels. It will therefore be able to ensure that those views are taken into account in United Kingdom policy formulation.
The Welsh assembly will have to ensure the implementation of EU obligations in Wales. We obviously want to play a full part in the United Kingdom—a United Kingdom which is part of the European Union, and a part of the European Union which we wish to see continue. I may not have made it sufficiently plain that the assembly will take over the current functions of the Welsh Office with respect to the structural fund programmes for Wales. That means that the assembly will be able to determine in agreement with the European Commission what should be the priorities for the structural funds in Wales; how they should be administered; and how the partnership of organisations which access structural funds should be involved in the process.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said it was important that there should be a devolutionary process which does not stop at Cardiff. I express that point more crudely than he did. I entirely agree with him. Devolution of powers will not be a single step. If the assembly is to do its work properly it will wish to have the closest liaison with local authorities, the business community, development agencies and public bodies. We do not wish there to be a monolithic devolution; if it is a monolith it will have no life and therefore it will not be successful.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. There are some matters in the Statement and in the White Paper which I welcome. For example, I welcome the fact that the White Paper confirms that Wales has been extremely successful in attracting inward investment and already enjoys a relatively favourable business climate. That is something one could not possibly have said 18 years ago. I also welcome the noble Lord's statement that over that same period it has developed a new confidence. Again I do not think one could have said that at the time I took over my responsibilities.
I agree with and welcome the decisions to merge the WDA, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales. When I took over my
1336
responsibilities those bodies had been recently created by the preceding Labour Government. Clearly they had to be allowed to develop at that time. Indeed, I ensured the survival of the Land Authority for Wales. However, I think that the time has come to bring them together. It is a sensible proposal.
I also think it right that the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation should hand over its responsibilities around the year 2000. That is exactly what I intended when I set it up. I said at the time that it was there in order to hand over responsibilities to local governments. I agree with all that.
However, the Statement said that there is too little freedom for people in each part of the United Kingdom to decide their own priorities. In view of the fact that all the domestic responsibilities of the Secretary of State are to be handed over in Wales to an assembly, I must repeat the question to which I failed to receive an answer during our recent discussions. What then is to be done to ensure that the people in England have that same ability to decide their own affairs?
Perhaps I may address one group of issues: the relationship of the assembly to Parliament. The White Paper says that,
"There will be a procedure for the speedy settlement of any disputes about the Assembly's use of its powers, and if it exceeds its powers the Government will be able to challenge It in the Courts".
Will the Minister tell us what is envisaged as procedure for the speedy settlement of any disputes? Disputes there inevitably will be. A body with control over £7 billion of expenditure which distributes money to local authorities will from time to time have disputes. I had nothing like that amount when I was Secretary of State, but I had to distribute money to local authorities, and about half that sum to other organisations. As Secretary of State I was faced from time to time with disputes. How are those disputes to be resolved?
The White Paper then states that,
"The Secretary of State for Wales and Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies will have a continuing role, but one which will be based upon a new partnership with the Assembly".
Will the Minister tell us a little more about the nature of that new partnership? Unless they are members of the assembly, Welsh Members will no longer be able to raise questions in Parliament as they can at present about the health service, the education service and all the other matters that most interest Members of Parliament in their own constituencies.
The White Paper also states that,
"The Secretary of State will continue to be accountable to Parliament for his actions through the normal mechanisms of Parliamentary Questions and debate. He will not however be accountable for the activities of the Welsh Assembly".
So what is he to be accountable for? Are Welsh Questions simply to address the nature of the messages that are passed by the Secretary of State up and down the conduit between the assembly in Wales and those few responsibilities that remain? Matters to deal with royalty are hardly likely to be the subject of frequent question. There are a small number of organisations, but it will be a pretty thin Question Time. What will the

1337
Secretary of State answer to Parliament about? We need some clarification on the future role of the Secretary of State and Members of Parliament in Parliament.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene, but we have had two interventions from Back-Benchers which have taken 11 minutes. I hope that the House will not take it unkindly from me if I draw attention to the Companion which says:
"Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief comments and questions for clarification from all quarters of the House are allowed, such statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate".
We seem to be verging on an immediate debate.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not mean to be discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir. However, I shall respond briefly to some matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, bearing in mind the injunctions of the Lord Privy Seal.
First, I shall deal with the fast track procedure to which the noble Lord referred. The question of a dispute between the assembly in terms of vires on secondary legislation and the Westminster Parliament will be capable of a fast track dispute resolution. The intention is that the matters shall be in some circumstances immediately referrable to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, asked about a new partnership. He asked about the accountability of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State for Wales will continue to have important functions. He will participate fully in the Government's policy formulation, in legislative and resource decisions. He will represent the needs of Wales in Cabinet and Cabinet committees. He will sit on relevant Standing Committees of the House of Commons considering legislation which affects Wales. The short answer to the noble Lord's question is this. Any retained responsibilities which still remain with the Secretary of State for Wales will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in another place in the usual way.
Perhaps I may respectfully suggest that we are attempting a debate which has been set for a little later in your Lordships' House, I believe next week. I would prefer to deal with specific questions either by letter if noble Lords prefer, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, or by awaiting the general debate.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question. He referred to the functions of the Secretary of State. The White Paper makes it perfectly clear that it is the intention of the Government that almost all the functions of the Secretary of State will be transferred to the assembly. I believe that about 2,000 civil servants are attached to the Welsh Office. How many of those will be transferred to the assembly, and how many will be left to the service of the Secretary of State?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot deal with that in precise figures. I can agree with the
1338
noble Lord's observation that a substantial bulk of the Secretary of State's present responsibilities will be devolved to the assembly and therefore a substantial number of the civil servants who will remain members of the Home Civil Service will be attached to the assembly for the discharge of those functions.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I welcome the White Paper with enthusiasm. I also congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he introduced it and replied to questions about it.
I particularly welcome the reference in the White Paper to an all-party commission to decide on standing orders. Will the Minister confirm that the intention is that the assembly should be less confrontational than the Westminster model; and that there should be a greater degree of co-operation between parties in serving the interests of Wales through this assembly?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do. It is far from my mind that our discussions on the referendums Bill have been in any sense controversial.
Wales is a different country. It has a small population. It has particular characteristics. I hear from the Benches behind me that it has select characteristics—perhaps elite characteristics. The way ahead for us in Wales is co-operation. Your Lordships may remember that years ago I mentioned this matter in a constitutional debate. If it wished, in present conditions, the Labour Party could have bullied through such a system as would have produced a virtually monolithic result in the assembly elections. We specifically chose, I believe honourably, not to do that. I am happy to confirm that there will be an independent commission to propose the standing orders, and the way the assembly should operate. In due time, as the noble Lord implied, if experience then shows that amendment of those standing orders is required, the assembly will be fully entitled to do that. We want inclusiveness. This is not simply a talisman that we have produced; it is what we really want. I hope that we have begun to demonstrate that.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Minister said that he wished the assembly to be politically inclusive. How will it take on board the great tradition that we have in local government in West Wales of the independent member? I cite as an example Pembrokeshire County Council, where two-thirds of the seats are held by independents. Annex C.6 of the White Paper states that,
"Political parties will be permitted to nominate individuals".
Independent groups are not parties and cannot group together. Does the Minister have an answer to that point?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not see any reason why an independent group should not register itself. The noble Viscount raises a very important point. As he will know, I am familiar with the long independent tradition—for instance, in Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. It is an important

1339
question and I shall turn my mind to it—not in any sense of "kicking the ball into the long grass"; I genuinely believe it to be important.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps I might ask a brief technical question from this side of the House. The Minister may wish to write to me rather than explain the matter at the Dispatch Box. I believe he said that the staff of the Welsh Office would be transferred to the new Welsh assembly but would still be home civil servants. Effectively, they would be answerable to the Secretary of State, who would in effect employ them. When it comes to disbursing public money, it is not politicians who write the cheques; it is civil servants. They take their instructions from politicians. When the civil servants in the Welsh Office write out cheques to disburse public money, whose instruction will they take—that of their "employer", or that of the assembly, which is not their employer?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord may have misunderstood what I said. I was very eager to underline and demonstrate that civil servants will remain bound by the high degree of fidelity to the public interest that they constantly demonstrate. If assembly sums are to be disbursed, that will be done on the authority of the assembly, not the Secretary of State for Wales. I was particularly anxious to underline that the public duties of civil servants will be maintained intact. They will not suffer any loss of independence by virtue of the fact that they will serve the public interest through the vehicle of the Welsh assembly as opposed to serving it through the vehicle of the presently constituted Welsh Office.
Lord Rees: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, there will—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry; I am advised—
Lord Rees: My Lords, I have one specific question.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am advised that the 20 minutes' time limit for Back-Bench questions is mandatory, as is the 30 minutes allowed for Questions. I was about to say that, had earlier remarks been shorter, we could perhaps have included more speakers; however, in deference to those who spoke I shall not say so.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
5.23 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Referendums: supplementary]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The Secretaries of State shall appoint an Independent Statutory Commission which shall monitor the conduct of the referendums provided for under this Act, and shall. in the light of those referendums, draw up recommendations for the conduct of future referendums, having regard to the 1996 Report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, such recommendations to be laid before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I took the hint that Amendment No. 25 would not be welcome and so decided not to move it.
I hope that we can deal with Amendment No. 26 quite quickly. It returns to the general proposition set out in the report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums as to what we ought to be doing with regard to the situation in this Parliament: we are promised four or five referendums, of which this is to be the first.
I accepted the point made in Committee by the Government that to draw up a referendums Bill—which is, I believe, the right way to proceed—before starting on the first referendum would not allow the Government to obey their election manifesto promise to hold the two referendums in relation to Scotland and Wales in September. I understand that. On the basis of their manifesto the Government have a good case for saying that we ought to proceed in the way in which we are proceeding, with these two referendums.
However, I wish to place on record, and try to elicit from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who will reply, merely some kind of appreciation—I do not even seek a commitment—of the argument in favour of having a generic referendums Act.
In Committee I quoted at some length the opinions of the commission, whose members included some very important people. The commission made this matter perfectly clear in its report. Perhaps I may quote from Guideline 3 of the report. It states:
"If the Government is planning a series of referendums, it has the option of establishing a statutory framework for the conduct of referendums through the enactment of a generic Referendum Act. Such an Act would demonstrate the Government's commitment to the efficient, fair and consistent conduct of referendums. It would provide for the establishment of an independent 'Referendum Commission' and include fixed rules on some matters (for example the organisation of the poll and the count). For other matters, on which it is impossible to determine rules in advance (for example, the wording of the question), the Act should set out how a decision should be reached. Those matters which will be different in each referendum and are likely to be of Parliamentary concern could be dealt with through primary legislation on each occasion".
The proof of that argument is contained in the Marshalled List that is before us, in which the schedules contain—I make no complaint about that because it was my idea—the mechanism for holding the referendum. It does so in the way set out because it has to ride piggyback on the Representation of the People Acts. I think all noble Lords will agree that that is not a very satisfactory way to proceed. There is constant cross-referencing. It would be far better to have a proper Act which, like the Representation of the People Acts, allowed referendums to be fought on a common basis.
I wish briefly to draw to the attention of the House a letter that I received from Mr. Michael Clancy, deputy secretary of the Law Society of Scotland, who, I have no doubt, is not unknown to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He states:
"I read with interest the exchange between you and the Lord Advocate (Official Report Volume 581 No.28, column 420). The Society considers that there may be some advantages to the enactment of a generic Referendum Act and is currently gathering information on Acts which relate to referendums in other jurisdictions.
"There are of course many difficulties in relation to a Referendum Act not least the issue of the Referendum Commission. No doubt this and other issues will become clearer as the Society concludes its examination".
I know that the noble and learned Lord received a copy as that is stated at the foot of my letter. He will therefore know that this is the society's view. The letter uses the words,
"there may be some advantages",
However, I suggest that there would be very considerable advantage.
This is merely a probing amendment. However, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will think beyond September and see that, in relation to referendums to come, such a measure would save us all a great deal of bother. It would save schedules of the kind that we see here having to appear in every referendum Bill. It would be the right and proper way to proceed.
I suggest that we should set up a commission now. It would not take a lot of time to appoint one or two people merely to look at the way in which the referendums work in Scotland and Wales in September and then to report to both Houses of Parliament and to the Government. That could be used as one of the factors in the creation of a generic referendums Act. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, the amendment is identical in terms to the one which was moved by the noble Lord in Committee. That was withdrawn after a lengthy debate. Noble Lords will recall that the question of an independent commission was debated at some length in Committee and I seem to recall that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, acknowledged that he did not wish the bureaucracy of a full-blown commission. I am grateful to him for acknowledging today—as he did on the previous occasion—that it would not be appropriate to have a referendum Act as part of this referendum as that clearly would not be possible.
I remind the noble Lord of what he said in dealing with this amendment at Committee stage and contrast it with what he said a few moments ago about the time taken to set up such an independent commission. On 7th July, at col. 423 of Hansard, he said:
"Of course I appreciate the difficulty of setting up a commission, as I propose, in the short time we have available".
1342
He acknowledged at that time that there were difficulties in the timescale in setting up the commission that he proposes in Amendment No. 26, which is in identical terms.
It is all very well talking about setting up a statutory commission, but the commission would have to be in place before the referendums in September if it is to have a proper opportunity to monitor them. The appointments procedure for such a commission would no doubt be a lengthy affair and, in my submission, it would be very difficult if not impossible to hold the referendums by autumn of this year, as promised in the manifesto, if one were to go along that route and accept the amendment.
During the passage of the Bill the Government have indicated the precise dates on which it is intended to hold the referendums. I am sure that the people of Scotland and Wales would not accept any unnecessary delay arising from my accepting this amendment.
I am also sure that the noble Lord did not wish to frustrate the Government's manifesto commitment in that regard when he put down the amendment. I urge him to reflect and to withdraw it today. He has quite properly, on several occasions, drawn the attention of the House to the report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums. Perhaps I may assure him that, were he to visit the Scottish and Welsh Offices, he would find a number of well-thumbed copies of the report, which has been an extremely useful document to the Government in preparing our proposals.
I said earlier that I thought the delay would be unnecessary. I also point out to noble Lords that the preparation of the report on which the noble Lord relies illustrates another matter. The commission did its work without any prompting from the Government. It did not require a statutory commission to be set up and in my submission it is unnecessary to have a commission at this time.
Previous referendums have been held successfully, as was recognised in the commission's report. Lessons have been learnt from them and noble Lords will appreciate that each referendum is different in many respects. However, I can assure the House that, should any lessons be learnt from the forthcoming referendums, the Government will take account of them in providing for future referendums. That is what was done in the past in respect of this referendum and it is what our predecessors did in respect of the 1979 referendums.
Quite rightly, I believe, Parliament will wish to consider on its merits the legislation providing for each referendum, as we are doing today. That allows the opportunity to consider how each individual referendum will be run, while taking account of past experience. I do not think that anything will be gained by these amendments, which would simply add another layer to the process.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to interrupt his interesting reply. Is he taking no account of the last five lines of the amendment? Does he suggest that the Government

1343
do not want to contemplate the idea of a commission which would learn from what happens during these referendums? Do the Government not wish to learn from the report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums and lay recommendations before the House for future referendums? That course seems a practical idea. Is the noble and learned Lord discounting it?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for seeking clarification on the matter. As I sought to explain, there is not time available to set up the statutory commission prior to the undertaking of the referendums. Of course we shall look at what happens in the referendums and learn any lessons that arise. I would not want to give the impression that either the Government or I are being complacent and saying that we could never learn from any experience. The way that this has been done in the past is to look at what happened in the past, learn from it and take matters forward.
It is not appropriate in this Bill, because of the timescale, to have such a commission. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the House to deal with it at this stage. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for reminding me of what I said at Committee stage. I had not forgotten. One of the points of the Report stage in your Lordships' House, as it is in the other place, is that it allows Members to reflect on what was said in Committee. On reflection, I thought that I was rather overstating the difficulty of setting up a commission. Governments can do things pretty quickly when they put their mind to it. Probably a small commission could be put in place in plenty of time to look over the referendums. I am happy to hear that the Government will be looking and learning although, to be honest, I would rather have a slightly more independent eye than that of the Government to do the looking and learning.
Once again, however, the noble and learned Lord, like other Ministers, has failed to answer the second part of the debate about the conduct of future referendums. I know that this is Report stage, but I should be happy to allow him to intervene to indicate whether the Government have any sympathy for and are prepared to give any consideration to the proposition that there should be a generic referendums Act. If they do not, then the next time we come to a referendums Bill we shall have to go through many of the same hoops that we have gone through with this Bill. Then it will be the next one and then the next one, and that is very unsatisfactory.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. If there is another referendum Bill, I trust and hope that we shall not waste the time on it that we have wasted on this one and that the Opposition's intentions will be a little better placed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think I need to take any lessons on opposition from the
1344
noble Lord, Lord Mackie. He has now moved to total support for the Government and has long forgotten that the Opposition's job is to probe and question, to ask what the Government intend by legislation. I suggest that he should go home—the noble Baroness on the Government Benches shakes her head—and, over the Recess, read some of the debates in the last Parliament where legislation was considered in great detail, quite rightly, by people on this side of the House.
I never made any complaint, even when we sat very late into the night, a good deal later than I have kept your Lordships with the Committee stage. That kind of intervention tempts me to show your Lordships that I am as capable as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, at keeping a Committee stage going long after we should all decently be home in our beds. Government Ministers are looking at me with some horror. I assure your Lordships that I intend to resist the temptation.
I am afraid that we shall have to come back to these issues when we have the next referendum. That is a pity. But perhaps by then the Government will have had a chance to reflect and decide that in everyone's interests it would be better to bring forward a representation of the people (referendums) Bill so that we know the basis on which all referendums will be conducted and will not have to go through very large schedules, as we have on this Bill, which we then have to marry to the appropriate Representation of the People Act. With that expression of disappointment, I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 27:
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause—
REFERENDUMS: SUPPLEMENTARY
(". Schedule (Conduct of the referendums. &c.) (conduct of the referendums) shall have effect.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
PUBLICLY-FUNDED INFORMATION
(" . Every household in Scotland and Wales shall receive a publicly-funded leaflet giving general information on the conduct of the referendums, and statements of the "Yes" and "No" cases relating to each referendum proposition, such statements to be of equal length and to be prepared by the organisations campaigning in the referendums.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in Committee and at that stage the Government said that they would consider the matter of funding and come back to us. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn:
"I said that we are currently considering how best to achieve public information and that I shall be grateful—I am sorry for any discourtesy—to all sources who wish to put forward their views. However, I stress that I have done nothing more than that".—[Official Report, 7/7/97; col. 474.]
He said that in response to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who graced us with his presence on that day. I believe I am right in saying that the Welsh

1345
White Paper indicates that the Government have decided that there will be a shortened version of the White Paper, which will be a more popular version, and that it will be distributed—by post, I presume—to every household in Wales.
I have not had a chance to look at the White Paper but, frankly, it will be the first government White Paper which presents a balanced picture for and against the Government's case. I make no complaint about that. I do not believe that in 18 years we produced a White Paper which contained both the Government's case And the Opposition's case in the same document. I do not ask the Government to add another chapter to their popular version, if I may so call it, giving the other point of view. But, undoubtedly, if the Government are to do what I have just suggested, at cost to public funds there will be a document going to every person in Scotland and Wales indicating the contents of the White Paper and, I have little doubt, putting the argument for the White Paper. I make no complaint about that.
But I shall complain if there will not be a similar facility for those who are campaigning against the White Paper and against the proposition that there should be an assembly in Wales and a parliament in Scotland. When there is a general election, the Government do not usually send out at taxpayers' expense a publication urging people to vote for the Government; though no doubt the party managers of both parties, when in government, would consider that to be not a bad idea and equally, party managers of the party not in government would think it an extremely bad idea. Rightly, we have not done that. I have tabled another amendment for later discussion which addresses the way in which we proceed at general elections and probes whether that would be the better way. But this procedure in particular rides on the proposition that a document précis-ing the White Paper will be sent to every household. My amendment seeks to know whether we shall include with that document or send separately an argument—I shall be quite fair—for the "yes" campaign and another for the "no" campaign.
Your Lordships will realise just how fair I am being because there will be two "yes" to one "no" over the Government's White Paper, which will be set out in, I hope, measured tones; and then there will be the more campaigning leaflet of the "yes" campaign and the "no" campaign. Obviously, if the Government just want to send their précis of the White Paper and a summary of the arguments against it, I shall be quite content. But I am trying to be reasonable in this matter and accept that the White Paper stands a little apart—not much—from a campaigning document on behalf of those who wish the people of Scotland and Wales to vote for the propositions in the White Paper.
I hope that I have sufficiently explained the position on this amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who will reply to the amendment, will be able to give us some further information on how the Government intend to use public funds to make people in Scotland and Wales aware not just of their White
1346
Paper but of the arguments for and against the propositions which have been put to them. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, let me briefly add a little background on what appears to be happening, which I believe is relevant. Again, I rely on the press in Wales. We are told that there will be a new "hi-tech Referendum Unit" established on Millbank and that the spin doctors who campaigned for the Labour Party and who led the campaign in the general election are spearheading the campaign to get a "yes" in the referendum in Wales. We are told that:
"Labour's campaign in Wales is being organised with an almost military precision".
The Western Mail continues:
"The use of Labour's general election machinery, drafting in English MPs to help with the Yes campaign, the appearance of Cabinet Ministers, a party political broadcast, rallies and public meetings, all lead to the impression that the people of Wales are in for a pro-devolution blitz.
"Not only will there be £700,000 spent on Government publicity about the facts and figures involved in creating an Assembly, but there will also be a helpline for those with queries. A special bargain White Paper priced £3 will be available at newsagents across Wales".
I believe that we ought to hear a little more about that helpline. Who will be sitting on the other end of the telephone? Will they be civil servants in the Welsh Office. Will they be the spin doctors on Millbank? Who will be responsible? Who exactly is paying the bills? May we be allowed to know exactly what will be the total costs of putting over the Government's case and whether we shall be told at the end of the day what they in fact were?
Bearing in mind the undoubted sympathy expressed by the Minister when we last spoke about these matters for putting over fairly to people in neutral terms the basic facts without the arguments, I hope that we can have some elaboration now of his ideas and that he has been able to come up with some positive thoughts to reassure us.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister also to comment on a report in the Sunday Telegraph two days ago. I hope that the Government Front Bench has seen it. It stated:
"The Government has earmarked more than £2 million of taxpayers' money for a 'propaganda fund' designed to help deliver victory in the referendums on devolution for Scotland and Wales.
The money will be used to produce a range of videos and pamphlets, as well as to staff telephone hotlines explaining the proposals for a Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly".
The Government have said that the referendum is to be modelled on the first one in this country in 1975 and also will follow the 1979 referendum in Scotland. On both those occasions a Labour government were in office.
Let me return to the 1979 referendum because I can compare it also with the 1975 referendum. In 1978, the Government said that they were modelling the referendum on the referendum on Europe. In 1979 the Government were officially supporting one side in

1347
the referendum. In the 1975 referendum on Europe, Ministers were allowed to campaign on both sides. There was no financial assistance, free printing or post provided by the Government. That was in 1979. There was no accounting by either side afterwards. On the other hand, in the Europe referendum, each individual's expenditure over a certain amount had to be included in the accounts and five senior Ministers' expenses were in the White Paper published afterwards. Four of them were on one side and one was on the other. Those were examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Most of the money accounted for on that occasion had not been contributed by the Government. Most of it had come from other sources, but it still had to be declared and the expenditure reported.
In 1975—the year of the referendum on Europe—the Government gave a grant of £125,000 to each side. Both sides were required to account for all contributions and to state from where they had come. In 1975 the Government published free for both sides the equivalent of a manifesto prepared by each side. That is similar to the suggestion put forward by my noble friend. That was not done in 1979 although the 1975 procedure was supposed to be followed.
The first report to which I referred seems to suggest that propaganda for one side only is to be put out. I hope that the Minister can say whether or not there is substance in that report in the Sunday Telegraph. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, speaking on the last amendment, said that the Government would want to learn from previous referendums. I initiated a debate in this House on 12th March 1979, nine days after the last referendum. It was quite a long debate—not the kind of short one which has to take place in the dinner break nowadays—and a number of points were made.
I agree entirely that, even though there is no time to set up the kind of commission proposed in the last amendment, lessons should be learnt from what is going to happen this time as well as taking into account what was done in the past. Certainly in the past two referendums, in 1975 and 1979, much trouble was taken to try to make sure that both sides received fair treatment. I am not at all happy that that is what is happening now.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the "Yes for Wales" campaign is being funded by individuals and organisations who are accountable to the Inland Revenue in the United Kingdom. I understand that the "No for Wales" campaign is being funded by a tax exile—Sir Julian Hodge—who reputedly lives in Jersey. He may see it as a way of redressing the balance and giving some money to the UK taxpayer. If so, does not he meet some of the requirements of my noble friend?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I support the amendment because I raised the issue at Second Reading. Can the Minister say whether, if the Government as opposed to individuals—I have no objection whatever to individuals giving whatever they
1348
wish—give money, it will go equally to the "No" and "Yes" campaigns? Alternatively, will they say that it is in their manifesto to go for "Yes"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, points to the difficulties which showed themselves when I began to investigate. On the last occasion I did not say that I would give consideration to public funding. That was a slip of the tongue. If the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, looks at the citation which he read, he will see that I did not say that I would give consideration to public funding. I said that there should be as wide dissemination of information to the public as possible.
We have no intention of providing public funds to support any campaign organisation. As the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, pointed out, the "Yes" campaign will raise donations from those who wish to subscribe. The "No" campaign, similarly, has the right in a free society to raise funds from wherever, whether on or off shore.
We do not intend to provide public money to allow campaigning organisations to send statements of their case at public expense to every household. To revert again to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, there are so many permutations—I am not teasing the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, but I can now recite the mantra; "Yes, No", "No, No", "No, Yes", "Yes, Yes"—that it simply is not practicable to give public funding to everyone who may have a view and regard themselves as a campaign organisation.
That is the stance in principle. There are practical objections to the amendment which the noble Lord will recognise. The amendment says,
"Every household in Scotland and Wales shall receive".
That indicates, if one looks at it, that there is an obligation on campaigning organisations to prepare leaflets. That is not a burden that can be put on a campaign organisation, which may want to have no public dissemination at public expense. It is simply not workable. Someone would have to identify the campaigning organisations. They may be quite different.
We have heard a variety of views in Scotland. For instance, would a campaigning organisation urging people not to vote at all be eligible for public funding? There should be a good public debate. Debates in both Houses of Parliament contribute to that. It is difficult to sit on this Bench at the moment without having quotations from the Western Mail or the Sunday Telegraph put under one's nose with the question—perhaps rather more politely put—"What do you say about that?" I read the Western Mail; I do not always read the Sunday Telegraph. I am ashamed to confess that I did not see the specific reference. Sometimes the Western Mail is accurate; sometimes it is not.
We are not prepared to fund mailshots. I read out the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place and I shall repeat it if I may:
"A leaflet describing our plans will go to every household and the White Paper text will be made available on the Internet".

1349
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is quite right. It is a bargain White Paper. It costs only £3. That is the conclusion to which we have come. There should be a good public debate. I believe that there will be a good public debate in both Scotland and Wales. Each campaign organisation must fund itself as it thinks appropriate. Campaign organisations will not all have the same song to sing.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said that he read the Western Mail on this occasion. Is it or is it not true that the Government are spending £700,000 on giving answers and disseminating information? I thought the noble Lord said that it was up to the campaigning bodies to raise their own money. The statement in the Western Mail is that the Government are spending the money. Can the Minister clarify what is the Government's role and expenditure?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Government will have a proper role. For instance, they will provide a "Reminder to vote" campaign. That is not a reminder to vote either yes or no. That sort of government expenditure will take place and I regard that as proper public expenditure in a matter of this importance. What will not be available are public funds for campaigning organisations as such. I read the Western Mail. I cannot say that I retain every syllable because I have to read other newspapers as well, with greater or lesser degrees of interest.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am grateful to the Minister or not. I take from his response that it is difficult for the Government to deal with the "Yes" and "No" campaigns. They are worried about who they are and how they will define their literature. At the risk of harking back to the last debate, if there were a generic referendums Act and referendums commission, that would be one of the tasks of the commission and the Government would not have to do it. That is another good reason for dealing with this issue before we hold any more referendums.
What worries me is that the précis White Paper will actually have in it the preface by the Prime Minister. I shall not bore your Lordships by reading out all the purple prose on the page. The last paragraph is sufficient.
"I will be campaigning vigorously for a strong yes vote on 18 September".
Apart from the fact that the legislation now says that the Welsh referendum will be on the same day as the Scottish one, which is 11th September—I shall not go into that again—it seems to me that the précis White Paper will be campaigning vigorously for a yes vote. Therefore a document will be popping through all our letter boxes in Scotland and Wales urging us to join the Prime Minister in vigorously giving a strong yes vote on 11th September. That appears to me to be public funds being used to campaign on one side of the issue.
However, I recognise an uphill struggle when I see it. Getting the Government to address debates and accept the logic of arguments is indeed an uphill struggle. We
1350
will return to this matter in the next amendment which is perhaps more tightly drawn. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
FREE POSTAGE FOR CAMPAIGNING ORGANISATIONS
(" . The Secretary of State shall defray the costs of postage, subject to Post Office regulations, of any organisations designated by him for the purpose of campaigning for and against the propositions set out in Schedules 1 and 2, subject to a limit of one item per elector, containing matter relating to the referendums, not exceeding 60 grammes in weight.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that we shall not have any textual criticism of this amendment because it is a very close crib from Section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which states:
"A candidate at a parliamentary election is, subject to Post Office regulations, entitled to send free of any charge for postage to each elector one postal communication containing matter relating to the election only and not exceeding 2 ounces in weight".
I have changed the "2 ounces", to take account of modern usage, to 60 grammes, which I am assured is the Post Office equivalent of 2 ounces. Otherwise the amendment, as your Lordships will have noticed, follows very closely the wording of the Representation of the People Act.
The reason for the Representation of the People Act 1983 and its predecessors deciding to allow political candidates in an election to send out free mail is simply in order to make sure that people are aware of each candidate's case and the arguments that that candidate wishes to put forward. It is part and parcel of our democratic process. If the Government have decided that that is one of the parts of our democratic process that one day, in the next year or two, they might remove, it would be nice to hear them say so today. I rather hope that all political parties are very much in favour of this service at election time which allows candidates to produce an election address and send it to each elector free of charge. What I am suggesting here is that an organisation designated by the Secretary of State for the purpose of campaigning for and against the proposition set out in the two schedules should be able to have the same facility, if it wishes to use it, as do candidates in an election.
I have tried to get round the problem of the organisations, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has put to me, by saying,
"any organisations designated by [the Secretary of State]".
I am trusting the Secretary of State for Wales, whom I do not know, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I do know, to carry out that task honourably. I am sure that they would do so. It would not be the most difficult task for them to carry out. In Wales, it would certainly be easier because there are only two answers—either a yes or a no. Scotland is more complicated. However, in general terms I think the first question is the dictating question, and it would be

1351
perfectly easy for the Secretary of State for Scotland to designate a "yes" campaign, which I gather has been set up—I have read a little about it but not a great deal—and a "no" campaign, which I know has also been set up. They could easily be designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this new clause to receive exactly the kind of services that are received by a candidate for election. I have said in the amendment "one item per elector". That is probably over-kill. In this day and age I think that one item per household is sufficient. But that is the way we have organised it. We have one item per elector at general elections. I see no reason why we should not do exactly the same at this referendum.
If the Government are to put out at taxpayers' expense a précis of the White Paper, as they have made clear they are going to do, and if in that précis they are to advocate their proposition at public expense—I should be rather surprised if they did not do that—they should give serious consideration to this amendment which allows the two campaigning organisations in Wales and the two campaigning organisations in Scotland to do what candidates are allowed to do at a general election.
The Government cannot complain about unfairness because I conceded by withdrawing my previous amendment that the Government can go ahead with a précis of the White Paper to every household. The "yes" campaign will therefore get a second bite of the cherry. But the "no" campaign will also get a bite. If noble Lords opposite are genuine in wishing this matter to be resolved by the Scottish and Welsh people in a high turn out and wish to know the settled view of the Welsh and Scottish people, I cannot comprehend what argument the Minister will have against this amendment. I very much commend it to your Lordships and to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, again and essentially on the same basis as I resisted his previous amendment. The Government have come to the conclusion that they will not provide any public funds to support any campaign organisation for the referendums. The "yes" campaigns in Scotland and Wales will have to be funded in the way that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, indicated.
I agree that the amendment does not have the same technical deficiencies and I think I was careful to put the technical deficiencies in respect of the previous amendment very much as subsidiary to the point of principle at which the Government have arrived. We have come to the conclusion that it is not the occasion to provide public funds to support any campaign organisation, whether "yes" or "no". I realise that that is a disappointment to the noble Lord. I hope he will acquit me of discourtesy if I simply restate the Government's position as there comes a stage where simply repeating the Government's position with variations is not particularly fruitful. I feel a sense of time passing as this is the last occasion on the Report stage when I shall have to respond on behalf of
1352
Her Majesty's Government to the seduction of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, with whom it is always a pleasure to cross swords.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the last part of the Minister's remarks certainly almost dulled my critical analysis of the first part of his remarks. I am grateful to him for what he said. The essence of debate occasionally is that we do go over some of the same issues. We try to look at them from a slightly different point of view, we try to accommodate the objections made at the Committee stage and come back at Report. While, I freely admit, it has been something of a learning curve for me to do it from this Dispatch Box, I am sure that it has equally been something of a learning curve for the Minister and his colleagues to do it from the other side. I suspect that we shall have plenty of practice in the years that lie ahead.
What worries me about what we have just heard is that when we read it in Hansard we will be able quite easily to pop "general election" into "referendum" and read an argument which the Government could easily bring forward in favour of actually abolishing the right contained in Section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. I do not think even the Liberal Democrats would be happy if the Government were proposing that. I believe that all the arguments in favour of candidates having the right to send out a leaflet free of charge are as persuasive for these two referendums as they are for general elections and by-elections.
I am not happy with the answer. I wish to see how many of your Lordships will join me in registering our displeasure that the Government are not prepared to follow in referendums the procedures of Section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Cranworth, L.

Astor, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Beloff, L.

Denbigh, E.

Biddulph, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Downshire, M.

Brentford, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gage, V.

Carlisle, E.

Gisborough, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Gray, L.

Carnock, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harlech, L.

1353

Harrowby, E.

Palmer, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Howe, E.

Peel, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Perth, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Inchcape, E.

Reay, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rees, L.

Jopling, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Kintore, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lawrence, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lindsay, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lucas, L. [Teller.]

Stewartby, L.

Lyell, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Marlesford, L.

Teynham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Torphichen, L.

Milverton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monson, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Nelson, E.

Waddington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wharton, B.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Haskel, L.

Alderdice, L.

Hayman, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Barnett, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hooson, L.

Blackstone, B.

Howell, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Blyth, L.

Hughes, L.

Borrie, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Calverley, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennet, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Chandos, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Crook, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dixon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eatwell, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Molloy, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkender, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nathan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Gilbert, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Paul, L.

Glasgow, E.

Peston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gregson, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grenfell, L.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Hamwee, B.

Rochester, L.

Han worth, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hardie, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

St. Davids, V.

1354

Sefton of Garston, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Serota, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Sewel, L.

Thurso, V.

Shepherd, L.

Tordoff, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Varley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Whitty, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
BROADCASTING IMPARTIALITY
(" .—(1) It shall be the duty of every broadcasting authority to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, the programmes broadcast by the authority comply with the requirement that due impartiality is preserved on the part of the persons providing the programmes as respects matters relating to the propositions set out in Schedules 1 and 2.
(2) Organisations campaigning for and against the propositions set out in Schedules I and 2 shall be allowed broadcasting time at the same hour of the day and of the same duration only, such that strict impartiality is observed by the broadcasting authorities.
(3) No party political broadcast referring to the referendums or to the affairs of Scotland or Wales shall be transmitted between the enactment of this legislation and the date of the referendums.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause comes in three parts. I have drawn the first subsection from the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973. Essentially, it tries to lay down a duty of impartiality on broadcasting authorities. The second subsection discusses whether or not the campaigning organisations should have party political broadcasts. The third subsection relates to what I might call ordinary party political broadcasts on behalf of the political parties in the time between the enactment of this legislation and the date of the referendums. I hope that the Government will say that I have no need to be concerned about this. I shall be very grateful if I can get that on the record.
Dealing with the first subsection, the broadcasting authorities themselves must make sure that they give due impartiality to the,
"matters relating to the propositions set out in Schedules I and 2."
In Scotland and Wales what normally happens in political broadcasting of every kind, including discussion programmes and radio and television news programmes, is that the broadcasters attempt, often on the same programme, to give balance and to have the four political parties in both countries represented. That is not done quite so often in news programmes, for obvious reasons, but they try over time to give balance. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and I have taken part in a number of programmes in which balance has been attempted, although on at least one occasion a member of one of the minority parties did not turn up so that the balance that the BBC was trying to achieve failed. It could hardly be blamed because the balancing party decided not to come along or had forgotten the engagement or whatever.
What I am concerned about—and I am sure that the broadcasters are equally concerned—is what they will be doing during the time between the end of next week when this Bill becomes law and 11th September. What will they be doing when it comes to balance? If they continue the kind of political programmes that we are used to in Scotland and Wales, we shall have the nationalists, the Liberals and the Labour Party all advocating a "Yes" vote in a programme. I still find it hard to believe that the Government can be comfortable with the nationalists being on the same side and saying that voting "Yes" would be a good idea when we all know that they want to go the next step to independence, and beside them there is a claimed unionist saying that it is a good idea because he does not want to go the next step. There seems to be a contradiction there which we could expose. Nonetheless, there would be three people advocating a "Yes" vote in Scotland and in Wales, and one person, a Conservative, advocating a "No" vote. I do not think that that would be a proper balance when discussing the propositions set out in Schedules 1 and 2.
I hope that that is not the way in which the Government envisage that the broadcasters will act and I hope that the broadcasters will not act in that way. They might be grateful for some guidance. I also hope that the broadcasters will seek to achieve some balance between the "Yes" and the "No" so that in a programme on which four people are interviewed, there will be two people with views on the "Yes" side and two people whose views are on the "No" side. That will be the broad balance that the broadcasters should attempt to achieve.
I do not know whether I drew this matter to your Lordships' attention previously, but, in the commission document to which I have referred on a number of occasions, Guideline 17 states:
"A balance should be maintained between the 'Yes' and 'No' viewpoints rather than between the different political parties. Broadcasters should be encouraged to provide a limited amount of airtime for setting out the arguments for each option in the referendum".
If Wales is anything like Scotland I suspect that the broadcasters will provide what the public will rapidly regard as far too much airtime for discussion of this issue because the one thing that we know is that the chattering classes in Scotland and in Wales are a great deal more thorough on this than almost any other group in either Scotland or in Wales. That is my first proposition, which is covered by the first subsection. I hope that the Government will be able to reassure me on that point and give the broadcasters some guidance.
The second subsection relates to party political broadcasts on behalf of the "Yes" and "No" campaigns in both Scotland and in Wales. I think that that speaks for itself. Will the broadcasters be obliged under the legislation to give to the "Yes" and "No" campaigns equal time and equal positioning in the broadcasting environment with which to put forward their cases in the nature of a party political broadcast? That is a clear question.
The third proposition relates to party political broadcasts as we know them. It is possible to imagine that there may be party political broadcasts in August
1356
and September although I suspect that the parties know that people are on holiday and that they are not very interested in party political broadcasts at such times. In previous debates we have been told that the population of Scotland will be hard at work throughout the whole of August and September. Although I do not imagine that the parties will be desperately keen to put out such broadcasts during August or at the beginning of September, I should like to know what the Government envisage in that regard. The referendum will be a fairly important topic in August and September, so there may not be any other issues on which party political broadcasts will be made. That is why I think that this point is relevant.
Perhaps I may remind whichever Minister is to answer—I believe that it may be the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, which will be most appropriate—of a case in the Outer House before Lord Ross on 19th February 1979. The case was Wilson v.Independent Broadcasting Authority. Party political broadcasts were under discussion in that case and your Lordships might be interested to know that the Wilson referred to was then a vigorous campaigner on the "No" side. He is now Minister of State at the Scottish Office and is keeping a very quiet profile on these matters. Indeed, he described himself the other day as a "caretaker Minister". He seems to have had a conversion on the road from Stornoway—perhaps it was the road from Ardrossan in his constituency or even on the road to Ardrossan before that area became his constituency. I am referring to Brian Wilson, whom I know well. We were both educated at the same school although not at the same time. He is therefore a man of high intellect and good education. I would not dispute that.
Brian Wilson and others, the executives of the then Labour "Vote No" campaign committee, brought that action against the Independent Broadcasting Authority because the parties in Scotland were going to put out party political broadcasts advocating a "Yes" vote and Brian Wilson and his friends thought that that was in breach of the IBA's responsibilities. Your Lordships will be happy to hear that I shall not bore you with the learned judgment of Lord Ross—your Lordships may not have been bored—but the conclusion was that party political broadcasts would be in breach and they did not then take place. In my third subsection I am simply seeking to establish that we shall start from that proposition and that there will be no need for Brian Wilson or anybody else—such as Mr. Smith in Wales—to go to court to try to ensure that party political broadcasts do not take place during the referendum campaign.
As we come towards the end of our procedures on this Bill, I am very much looking forward to receiving from the Lord Advocate the kind of assurances which will leave me deeply satisfied. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I rise briefly but with a particular interest in the answer to this question as I am a director of one of the television companies which will be broadcasting during the referendum campaign and which is subject to the decisions of the Independent Television Commission. It is important that

1357
I should know the answer, particularly, as I believe that I pointed this out on an earlier amendment, given the report in the Welsh press that there will be a government party political broadcast in the run-up to the holding of the referendum. It would be most unfortunate if we got into a situation, almost by chance, where a government party political broadcast went out (perhaps because it had been scheduled for some time) but there was no opportunity for an alternative party political broadcast to be given which would allow the "No" campaign to have its say. Much the best solution seems to be that there should be no party political broadcasts at all during that period.
I turn now to the other question raised by my noble friend. It is desirable that there should be a balance. However, as I discovered when I took part last week (for the first time) in a broadcast at midnight—it is not a practice that I hope to repeat frequently—on exactly the topic of Welsh devolution that we are now discussing, "balance" to the broadcasters currently means having three who are in favour of an assembly and one who is supposed to do battle on the other side. I do not mind being in that position and I am sure that I made the case extremely powerfully and won the argument, but it is a pretty odd sort of balance and I do not want to have to spend the whole of August and September carrying out the job of being the odd one out on such a broadcast.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps I may add a footnote to what my noble friend Lord Mackay said when moving the amendment. There was yet another Wilson who could have been involved in the case. I refer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, who was at that time the joint chairman of the "No" campaign in Scotland. He had been a former Lord Advocate in the Labour Government. He could easily have been another Wilson doing the same thing.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I hope that I can give noble Lords opposite some comfort on this amendment. I do not think that there is any need to be concerned. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, reminding me of the Wilson case. My memory is often bad, but in view of the fact that I drew that case to the attention of the Committee, I am bound to say that in the intervening two weeks my memory has not yet gone so bad that I cannot remember the case—although I must say that it seems longer ago than that. Wilson will be followed by the courts, and that is one reason why this amendment is unnecessary.
I said at Committee stage that responsibility for what was broadcast rested with the broadcasters and the regulatory authorities. Noble Lords will recall that at Committee stage I set out at length the position on broadcasting. I do not propose to repeat myself. I simply refer noble Lords to Hansard and cols. 420, 434 and 435 of the proceedings in Committee. But there are codes in place to ensure that the reporting of controversial subjects is treated with due impartiality and accuracy both in the news services and in the more
1358
general area of programmes dealing with matters of public policy or political controversy. In that situation I believe that the first part of the amendment is unnecessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said at Committee stage (at col. 433 of Hansard), it is for the existing broadcasting authorities to ensure on behalf of Parliament that the broadcasters operate impartially.
The tradition is that the Government do not interfere in such matters. It is for the broadcasters themselves to observe the code and to face up to their responsibilities. I urge the House not to deviate from that norm. The matter is best left to the broadcasters. If they fail in their objectives the courts will intervene, as happened in Wilson. This has happened in very few cases. The very fact that there are few cases indicates that broadcasters act responsibly. I am sure that they will do so in the reporting and coverage of the lead-up to the referendums. I believe that the amendment in the three subsections seeks to interfere with the way in which broadcasters fulfil that duty. I suggest that such interference is neither necessary nor appropriate in view of the safeguards in place. The situation has worked well in the past both as regards general elections and referendums.
As far as concerns subsection (2), this introduces a new point. It imposes a particular view of what "impartiality" means. I am not sure what would be the effect of allowing organisations to campaign at the same broadcasting time for the same duration. Does it mean that any organisation that declares itself to be campaigning for or against the proposition should be given exactly the same air time? That raises the prospect of, say, half a dozen people coming together to form an organisation. It is quite legitimate for them to do so. Are they to have the same time as Scotland Forward or Think Twice, both of which organisations apparently have a substantial following? Is that fair or sensible? Should we not simply leave the matter to the broadcasters themselves to decide? Is it appropriate for us to set out in legislation that the time allocated to one organisation must be on precisely the same date or time of day as is allocated to another organisation? It may be that to do so will not result in appropriate impartiality on the part of the broadcasters. For that reason I suggest that this subsection is also unnecessary.
As far as concerns subsection (3), I submit that this is also unnecessary but that it goes further than Wilson. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has already observed, Wilson is the law and it protects those who are anxious about party political broadcasts covering the referendum. No doubt the various broadcasting organisations and bodies will take that into account in deciding how they are to fulfil their obligations. I do not believe it is appropriate for me to give free legal advice to the company of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. No doubt it has access to lawyers who can advise it in appropriate terms, for which it will have to pay a modest charge.
As far as concerns subsection (3), it goes slightly further than Wilson in the sense that it prohibits a party political broadcast dealing with the affairs of Scotland or Wales during the referendum campaign. It is not confined to the referendum. One can imagine that something may arise in the run-up to the referendum that is unconnected

1359
with it which justifies a party political broadcast about that issue. That issue may have a bearing on the affairs of Wales or Scotland. This amendment will preclude that. I do not believe that that is a desirable outcome of this amendment.
In short, I ask noble Lords to reflect on the way in which broadcasting companies have fulfilled their obligations with responsibility in the past. Let us leave it to them to continue to do so, and let us leave it to the courts to ensure that on the rare occasions when they overstep the mark they are brought back into line. This is not an area in which the Government should seek to regulate and, with respect, it is not appropriate for this House to do so either. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he express a view on the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish? He said that there were only two arguments for and against and therefore the time would be allocated fairly not between the parties but between the argument for and against. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that he had been involved in a broadcast which had been three to one against him. There is nothing more desirable than to have three to one against one if one has half the time available to put one's argument. It would be nice if the noble and learned Lord could give a view on that point.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, raises an interesting question which, from recollection, was addressed in Wilson. Where in a referendum there are only two options, "Yes" or "No", as I understand was the position in 1979, the court has held that there must be balance as between the "Yes" campaign and the "No" campaign. This time the situation in Scotland is slightly more complicated. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has pointed out, one has the "Yes, yes" group, the "Yes, no" group, the "No, yes" group and the "No, no" group. It will be for the broadcasting authorities to decide how to provide balance in that situation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that the question is not simply one of three against one, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has said. In such a programme, obviously if the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, were given more time, or half the time, there would be a balance. Knowing the noble Lord's abilities, I am sure that he would not need such an advantage.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response and to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie for his intervention which encapsulated some of the points that I was making. I hope that the noble and learned Lord does not think that such legislation is unnecessary because I cribbed—if that is the word—pretty closely from the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 which lays out some of the matters in subsections (1) and (2). I pretty well followed what is said in the Act, amending it slightly to take account of the fact that we are dealing with referendums and not general elections.
1360
Between what the noble and learned Lord said today and what he said in Committee, I am reassured about the first subsection. I have little doubt that the broadcasters will follow impartiality in the circumstances explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. On the second, I can see some of the problems, but clearly if the broadcasters decide that one of the parties should have a party political broadcast, they will have to give the same facility to the others. It has to be roughly the same day of the week and time as given to the other parties. The words are again taken from the Independent Broadcasting Act 1973.
It clearly would not be balanced to have a party political broadcast for one side at 9 o'clock in the evening on a weekday, and for the other side, let us say, at 9 o'clock in the morning on a Saturday. The law already laid down makes it clear that factors such as the day of the week and time of the day must be taken into account in deciding whether there is balance.
I was a little worried about the noble and learned Lord's answer to the third point. He seemed to be suggesting that the Government might want to have a party political broadcast on Scottish affairs. That would worry me. However, I am probably at ease with that proposition when I read the judgment of the Lord Ross, which I hope encapsulates what I believe to be the right way to proceed. He said:
"It is up to the respondents now to decide"—
that was the independent broadcasting authorities—
"what political broadcasts if any should be arranged in relation to the referendum in place of the four party political broadcasts in question. It will be necessary however to ensure that the same time is given to the proponents of 'Yes' as is given to the proponents of 'No'. If no broadcast can be arranged that may be unfortunate but in that event there will at least be no question of a failure to maintain a proper balance. Nor will the public be entirely deprived of information contained in broadcasts regarding the referendum since, as I have already observed, there will be current affairs broadcasts dealing with the referendum".
If the Government decided that they wanted a party political broadcast in Scotland or Wales because of something that had arisen, the broadcasting authorities would have to be mindful of the words that I have read out from that judgment. With the Lord Advocate's assurances, backed up by the judgment of Lord Ross, I am reasonably content that so far as concerns broadcasting the rules will be fair and reasonable to both sides. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Expenditure]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 32A:
Page 3, line 7, leave out ("an Order in Council under section 1(1) or 2(1)") and insert ("Schedule (Conduct of the referendums, &c.)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my big moment has finally arrived. Because the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, withdrew Amendment No. 25, my place in the sun earlier was denied me. Having finally got to my feet, perhaps I may say, in the new spirit of co-operation and inclusivity,

1361
that the amendment is purely technical. It is consequential upon the need to incorporate Orders in Council into the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 9, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("a Minister of the Crown").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 34 and 56. These amendments are technical and are intended simply to clarify the scope of the finance provision in Clause 5 which allows expenditure in preparation for the establishment of a Scottish parliament or Welsh assembly to be paid out of money provided by Parliament. The intention is that this provision should cover not only expenditure on the building or refurbishment of parliament/assembly buildings, but also advance expenditure on, for example, any adjustment to Inland Revenue and DSS computer systems required to cope with the tax-varying powers of the Scottish parliament. Such changes have a long lead time, and if the tax-varying power is to be available on establishment of the Scottish parliament (whether or not the parliament decides to use it), it may be necessary to incur expenditure before the main devolution legislation reaches the statute book.
These amendments are intended to put beyond any doubt the question of whether such expenditure would be covered by Clause 5. The estimated costs shown in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum remain unchanged. All expenditure under this provision will be subject to the normal parliamentary rules of supply. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was tempted to the Dispatch Box on hearing that the amendment paved the way to the Scottish parliament having tax-raising powers. There were some interesting articles in the Scotsman this morning about powers wider than income tax, which I could go over. I shall not do so, because I should then raise the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who came to my help on the previous amendment. I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, on his amendments.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I think I understood the Minister to say that it was likely that it would be Treasury Ministers who would be the additional Ministers concerned. If I am wrong, I should be glad if he would say so. My experience is that the Treasury is unlikely to approve any expenditure before a scheme has been approved by Parliament. Is he suggesting that the Treasury would approve the initial expenditure on equipment for a parliament before it had even been decided by Parliament that such a thing should exist, or are there other Ministers and other objects which this is to cover?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is purely preparatory expenditure. It is not substantive expenditure. The amendment is designed to widen the definition to ensure
1362
that the authorisation can be given by a Minister of the Crown rather than by a Secretary of State. It is subject to the normal processes of government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("the establishment of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Referendum in Scotland]:
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert (" . I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILL ENACTING THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS MAY DIFFER SUBSTANTIALLY IN BOTH FORM AND EFFECT FROM THE WHITE PAPER THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUBLISHED.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a probing amendment. It is a singleton amendment whereas, perhaps, there should be four amendments to complete the set. I am trying to find an answer to a question which has been posed a number of times by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and others; namely, just how advisory is the referendum? The question has been asked that way round and I am now asking it the other way around. I suggest that something should be placed on the ballot paper which states that the referendum is advisory and that things can change afterwards. Indeed, when the Bill is in its final form, there may be aspects of it which are unrecognisable from the White Paper. It may be that in the course of the consideration of the Bill, we shall find something which can be changed to advantage with which the noble Lord and the Government agree; for example, amendments in relation to the points raised today by my noble friend Lord St. Davids dealing with the independent members in Wales and how they could be fitted into the assembly. Therefore, I seek an assurance from the noble Lord that if the Government agree with proposals for change, they will not say that it was not in the White Paper and therefore, they cannot do it. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the spirit in which he moved the amendment. I accept that it is probing. I can virtually say that I agree and leave it at that. I underline the point that, of course, during its passage through Parliament, it is possible for the Bill to be amended if Parliament so wishes. The Government will wish to take into account amendments when moved and if we consider them to be constructive to add to the Bill we should wish to support them. That is perfectly consistent within the framework of an advisory referendum.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted by that answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert—
("PART III
FORM OF THIRD BALLOT PAPER
Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament to be housed in a new purpose-built building and not in the building of the former Royal High School in Edinburgh:
Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box.

I AGREE THAT THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT SHOULD BE HOUSED IN A NEW PURPOSE-BUILT BUILDING

OR

I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT SHOULD BE HOUSED IN A NEW PURPOSE-BUILT BUILDING

")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment adds a third question to the ballot paper. I was accused in the Herald of being mischievous by tabling this amendment. What a thought! I have absolutely no intention of being mischievous. But the whole subject indicates a certain amount of interesting confusion on the part of the Government.
In the late 1970s, the building of the former Royal High School in Edinburgh was earmarked as the site for the proposed Scottish parliament. A great deal of public money was spent on refurbishing it and equipping an oval chamber for the parliament. As we all know, it did not come about and the offices became the offices of the Lord Advocate, although I think that his department has now moved elsewhere. The debating chamber was used on a number of occasions by the Scottish Grand Committee when it met in Edinburgh. Therefore, in my previous capacity, I have debated with, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, whom I see opposite, in the former Royal High School.
For the past 18 years, the campaigners in favour of an assembly have advocated that it should meet in that building. It has been picketed for years by one particular group, although I have not passed through or by that picket line. Indeed, it has been shown as one of the montages of Scottish views introducing Scottish political programmes. Clearly the broadcasters thought that if the parliament ever arrived, it would be seated in the Royal High School. Indeed, I suspect that that was the view of almost everyone in Scotland until about a couple of weeks ago.
My recollection was that in order to give the members of the parliament and its officials the necessary office space, use would be made of Old St. Andrew's House across the road. Indeed, about the only argument in favour of having the parliament is the off chance that you become prime minister and can choose for yourself the most beautiful
1364
panelled rooms in Old St. Andrew's House with terrific views over the city of Edinburgh. However, that is another point. That was the idea in the late 1970s and was throughout the 18 years of the government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher and my right honourable friend John Major.
Therefore, it came as a surprise to us all—including, I am sure, to the people picketing there—that the Secretary of State for Scotland suddenly discovered that the premises were not suitable. That seems amazing given the number of times that he must have debated in it as a member of the Scottish Grand Committee. I am still not entirely sure why that conclusion has been reached.
I wonder idly, and perhaps mischievously again, whether the simple fact is that the civil servants currently using the rather beautiful offices in Old St. Andrew's House told the new Government on 2nd May, "If you think we're moving out of here, have another thought. Possession is nine-tenths of the law and we are staying here." I do not blame them. When I was a Minister at the Scottish Office I occupied for most of the time an office in Old St. Andrew's House. Only very reluctantly did I move to New St. Andrew's House in the last year of my ministerial career. I can understand that the officials do not wish to move.
But, of course, if they do not move, then the parliament must be sited somewhere else. Mr. Dewar has now indicated that there will be a great competition to decide where it should he sited. I do not wish to go into the arguments but the former Royal High School has a lot going for it. Edinburgh is about to become a car-free city if some of the eccentric people who run its council get their way. As people will be coming from all over Scotland, it seems to me that the nearer the proposed parliament is to the main railway station, Waverley station, the better. That will certainly be true for the great majority of the members of the assembly who will be travelling from west and central Scotland. That can be done easily from Queen Street on the train. They will arrive at Waverley and can just walk up the hill. It is a short walk and it will be very good for them. It is slightly uphill, which will raise their heartbeats sufficiently to keep them healthy and prevent too many by-elections.
Seriously, I believe that there is a huge advantage, if the assembly is to happen at all, in it being in the centre of Edinburgh beside the railway station, if it must be in Edinburgh. The Government should make efforts to find their way round the accommodation problem. If that means having an argument with their civil servants and the permanent under-secretary, I suggest they have that argument. If my words of encouragement to them reinforce them in that argument, I shall be very pleased.
I do not believe that Leith is a suitable site. It is not easy to get to without a motorcar and it seems to me to be important that the parliament should be in the centre of Edinburgh. As I live in Glasgow and play a very small part in the life of that city, your

1365
Lordships might expect me to offer Glasgow as an alternative. The transport arrangements are certainly much better. Glasgow does not have that obsession against the motorcar. It has a good motorway system. The railway lines are extremely good and come into the centre. I am quite sure that the Lord Provost of Glasgow, Mr. Pat Lally, who is very adventurous in such matters, would very quickly find a site to accommodate the assembly and all the other necessary people if that were an option.
This small debate will give many of your Lordships an opportunity to put an oar in for a favourite place. I expect to hear Stirling mentioned, and perhaps Falkirk, as I see the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, present. Perth or even Aberdeen may come from the Minister, if he is allowed to have any independent thought at all. There are a number of variations.
But my serious point is to ask why, after all this time, it has been decided that the Royal High School is not suitable. Why should we embark on what will be a fairly expensive operation to build a purpose-built parliament building with all the necessary offices? It will be a considerable expense. Dare I suggest that that money might be used to get the Secretary of State out of the dilemma that he is in about the Skye Bridge. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate might certainly consider that to be a better use of £30 million or £40 million—or even double that—of resources. Before the extra money is spent—and, after all, it will come out of the Scottish grant, out of the health and education services—we, the Scottish public, ought to be allowed a view on the matter. As we shall be asked in the second question about whether we want tax raising powers, we should be asked whether we want to shift the Scottish parliament from the place where for the past 20 years everyone thought it would be to a purpose built place somewhere in Edinburgh or in another part of Scotland which has not yet been determined and for which there is to be an architects' competition.
Finally, even if the building is inadequate, would it not be better to start the process, if it starts, and then allow the parliament and its government to decide where it will be set up? If the Government are serious about wanting these decisions to be taken in Scotland, would it not be a good start to allow the Scottish parliament to decide for itself whether the buildings are adequate and where it ought to be set up? I believe that the big brother attitude which the Secretary of State for Scotland is exhibiting is out of kilter with his normal views. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is urging me to complete my contribution and I shall do so. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, either I am going soft in the head or the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is improving enormously as the debate comes to a close. The amendment is nonsense, but what he says about the Royal High
1366
School is good sense. The people of Scotland have expected the parliament to be sited there and I believe that the Government must give serious consideration before they upset that idea. I do not know why they have announced that they are considering an alternative, but no doubt the Minister will tell us.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am concerned about the amendment. First, if Scotland is to have its own new purpose built parliament where will the money come from? In that respect, I was relieved when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, moved Amendment No. 33 because I understood that the setting up of the parliament would be paid for out of Exchequer grants from Westminster rather than out of the Scottish grant. That gave me some comfort, but I was a little concerned when my noble friend Lord Mackay said that he believes that anything to do with the parliament will come out of the Scottish grant.
My concern is that any new building should be traditional and not, for example, like the St. James' Centre in Edinburgh. I have always believed that that is not in keeping with George Street, Princes Street or Queen Street and that when it comes to local authority planning there are double standards. That upsets me a great deal.
I believe that wherever the parliament is established it must have suitable parking facilities. As a Member of your Lordships' House for some years, it has been my experience that we do not keep normal hours and I would not necessarily want to keep any other hours. Any Member, from a Minister to a Back-Bencher such as myself, who is involved in a Bill needs a fair amount of the morning to carry out research. Therefore, parliament cannot sit at ordinary times and many people will need to use their cars when attending the parliament in Scotland. Unlike London, Edinburgh does not have a first-class public service. Although I do not know Glasgow too well, I do not believe that the service can be as good as it is in London.
Finally, if the Government are planning a new purpose built parliament, will they consider establishing it in Perth? Perth really is at the centre of Scotland. There is almost nowhere, from Dumfries to Wick, that cannot be reached in about two hours by motorcar. That is one of the great advantages of Perth. I realise that civil servants involved in the parliament would have to travel from Edinburgh, which would be their base, but I believe that the suggestion is worth making at this stage. I ask the Government to take it on board. I will not say that the amendment is the kind that I would support in a Division, but it has raised important points.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have been in the centre of Edinburgh only twice during the past 13 months, but I find St. Andrew's House akin to the maze at Hampton Court when one is attempting to find one's way around let alone to the Royal High School. Will there be parking for the future MSPs?

1367
Will the Minister confirm that Perth was the capital of Scotland until 1437 when the King was murdered? The court moved to Edinburgh to escape the warring clans, such as those of my noble neighbour Lord Mackie and myself. Indeed, one had to cross not one but two rivers, the Tay and the Forth. That is why the entire court and the administration of Scotland moved to Edinburgh in the 15th century. I believe that now is the time to reverse that.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I feel that I must take part in the debate since I have the honour to bear the name Perth. It is right that until the middle of the 15th century St. Johnstone, as it was in those days, and Edinburgh vied as the capital. Sometimes the court was at one place and sometimes it was at the other. I can promise the Government that if they considered Perth seriously I know that it can provide just the site at the Horse Cross. It is an admirable place near the Perth museum, which is perhaps appropriate. I do not wish to pursue the matter further, except to say that the parliament would be most welcome.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we learn something new every day. Finally, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that he is so committed to the devolution project that for the past several decades he has refrained from passing through the picket line outside the Royal High School. That is good news.
I liked the argument about Perth. Of course, if one is looking around Scotland, no city can offer as much delight and delectation to Scottish parliamentarians as can Perth. I am interested in the argument that it should be the site of the new parliament because it is in the centre of Scotland. On the same argument, I take it that we shall shortly be moving to Meriden, which is the centre of England. I do not think we can decide this matter on the basis of geographical centrality, however attractive that may be.
There was criticism of why we had just announced the proposal to review the location of the parliament. We were asked if we had just woken up to the problem, as it were. The answer is simple. The government who were in office until 1st May and who had been in office for the previous 18 years had not been particularly concerned to establish whether the Royal High School was a suitable location for a Scottish parliament. They had a slightly different view of what should happen to Scotland in constitutional terms. Some 20 years ago the Royal High School was considered to be suitable but times move on. There have been changes and the condition of the building has significantly changed. I must make it absolutely clear that at this stage we are not ruling out the Royal High School. However, we believe we should take a broader view and take into account a broader range of options before reaching a decision to ensure that a new parliament for Scotland can be housed and can operate from a suitable building that is appropriate for a modern,
1368
functioning, working parliament. That is the point. It would be premature to cut short such consideration by determining the matter in a rather inadequate manner by means of the two questions that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, offers in his amendment.
I make one serious point—not that the others have not been serious—in the context of the Royal High School. We all know that the nature of public life has changed significantly over the past two decades, and not always for the best. An issue which now has a higher profile than formerly is that of security. Those who know the location of the Royal High School will recognise that it poses significant problems for security. It may be possible to overcome those problems. As I say, we have not ruled out the site. We want to consider the whole range of options. Twenty years ago I do not think that we would have had in the forefront of our minds the need to protect the security of those who perform their day-to-day business on the site of the parliament and the fact that a wide-ranging group of people might visit it from time to time. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he bear in mind the problem of parking? Many of us, if we were members of the parliament, would still need to travel to Edinburgh by car.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Earl makes a fair point. The problem of parking will clearly be borne in mind.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who I believe described the amendment as daft—I am not sure whether that was the word he used, but it is a fair précis of it—but said that the argument had some merit. I am grateful to him for saying that because it was to get the argument on the record that I tabled the amendment in the form I did.
The Minister rather puzzled me when he suggested that this Parliament might move to Meriden because that is the centre of England. I wonder whether the Government have some further plans to turn this Parliament into the parliament of England. Perhaps the West Lothian question is a little deeper than even I thought it was.
I take the point about security and the former Royal High School. As regards the measures that I assume will be discussed on Thursday. I am not certain that the Scottish parliament will debate the kind of issues which result in security being as big a problem as it is for this Parliament. However, I appreciate that there may be a security problem. I could mischievously say that if all these difficulties exist there is a perfectly good parliament for Scotland here on the banks of the Thames as part and parcel

1369
of the United Kingdom. That is a fair point but it is not original. I noted that someone made that point in the letters page of one of the Scottish newspapers.
However, the authorities here have managed to adapt a 100 year-old building imaginatively and well to the needs and the work of a modern parliament. That has been achieved with the addition of buildings outside Parliament which are used as Members' offices. I suggest to the Minister—this is meant to be constructive—that a discussion with those who have adapted this building may be useful in terms of developing ideas about the location of the Scottish parliament. I notice that the Minister completely ignored the question of Old St. Andrew's House. However, if I were in his shoes, I might not want to send a message to my officials that I was about to turf them out of their rather nice offices and move them to rather poorer, modern offices. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, this is a serious issue. I hope that the Government will consider it in much greater detail than they have to date. Above all, I hope they will consider the point I made that perhaps we should leave this decision to the people who will sit in the new parliament, if that comes about.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, returning to his former area of specialism; namely, homelessness?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not wish the parliament to be homeless. Indeed it need not be homeless. It has a home if it comes about; namely, the one that was earmarked 20 years ago. I do not wish to continue with this debate. It has been interesting and I hope that the Government have taken on board some of the constructive points made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Referendum in Wales: Form of ballot paper]:
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 48 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 50:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
CONDUCT OF THE REFERENDUMS, &c.
1. The provisions of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to the referendums under sections 1 and 2.
Time
2.—(1) In calculating any period of time for the purposes of any provision of, or applied by, this Act, the following days shall be disregarded.
(2) In relation to the referendum in Scotland, the days are—

(a) a Saturday or Sunday, and

(b)a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in Scotland.

(3) In relation to the referendum in Wales, the days are—

(a)a Saturday or Sunday, and

(b)a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in England and Wales.

Advertisements
3.—(1) The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984 shall have effect in relation to the display on any site in Scotland of an advertisement relating specifically to the referendum under section 1 of this Act as they have effect in relation to the display of an advertisement relating specifically to a Parliamentary election.
(2) The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 shall have effect in relation to the display on any site in Wales of an advertisement relating specifically to the referendum under section 2 of this Act as they have effect in relation to the display of an advertisement relating specifically to a Parliamentary election.
Premises used for election purposes
4.—(1) In relation to premises in Scotland, section 98 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (premises not affected for rates) shall have effect as if the reference to public meetings in furtherance of a person's candidature at an election included a reference to public meetings promoting a particular result in the referendum under section 1 of this Act.
(2) In relation to premises in Wales, section 65(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (occupation for election meetings and polls) shall have effect as if—

(a) the reference to public meetings in furtherance of a person's candidature at an election included a reference to public meetings promoting a particular result in the referendum under section 2 of this Act, and

(b)the reference to use by a returning officer for the purpose of taking the poll in an election included a reference to use by a person exercising functions of a returning officer in accordance with paragraph 5(1)(b) of this Schedule for the purposes of taking the poll in the referendum under section 2 of this Act.

Returning officers and counting officers
5.—(l) Functions conferred by this Schedule on the returning officer shall be exercised—

(a)in each local government area in Scotland, by the person who, under section 41 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (local government elections in Scotland) is, or may discharge the functions of, the returning officer at an election of councillors for that area,

(b) in each county or county borough in Wales, by the person who is for the time being appointed to act as returning officer for that county or county borough under section 35(1A)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (local government elections in Wales).

(2) A returning officer may, in writing, appoint one or more persons to discharge all or any of his functions.
6.—(l) In Scotland, the council of a local government area shall place the services of its officers at the disposal of any person who is acting as returning officer or counting officer in relation to that area.
(2) In Wales, the council for any county or county borough shall place the services of its officers at the disposal of any person who is acting as returning officer or counting officer in relation to that county or county borough.
7. A counting officer may, in writing. appoint one or more persons to discharge all or any of his functions.
8.—(1) Order 45, rule 1 of the County Court Rules 1981 (application for taxation of returning officer's account under section 30 of the Representation of the People Act 1983) shall have effect in relation to applications made under section 30 of that Act as applied by paragraph 13(2) below.
(2) For the purpose of sub-paragraph (1). a reference in Order 45, rule 1 to a returning officer shall he construed as a reference to a returning officer, a counting officer or a Chief Counting Officer.
Hours of polling
9. The hours of polling shall be between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
The ballot papers
10.—(1) The back of the ballot papers shall be in the form set out in the Appendix.
(2) A ballot paper—

(a) shall be capable of being folded up,

(b) shall have a number printed on the back, and

(c) shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on it.

(3) For the referendum in Scotland, the two forms of ballot paper shall he of different colours.
Counting of votes, &c.
11.—(1) A counting officer shall, in accordance with any directions given by his Chief Counting Officer, appoint persons to observe the counting of the votes and the verification of the ballot paper accounts.
(2) No person may attend the counting of votes for any voting area unless he is—

(a) the counting officer for that area or a person appointed by him under rule 26 of the Parliamentary Elections Rules as applied by paragraph 13 below,

(b) a Chief Counting Officer,

(c) the Member of Parliament for a constituency wholly or partly within that area,

(d) an observer appointed by the counting officer for that area under sub-paragraph (1), or

(e) permitted by the counting officer for that area to attend the count.

(3) A counting officer shall give observers such reasonable facilities for observing the proceedings, and all such information with respect to them, as he can give them consistently with the orderly conduct of the proceedings and the discharge of his duties in connection with them.
(4) Before a counting officer makes a certification under section 1(6)(b) or 2(6)(b), or makes any public announcement as to the result of the count, he shall consult his Chief Counting Officer who may direct him to recount—

(a) the ballot papers, or

(b) in the case of the referendum in Scotland, either or both of the forms of ballot paper.

(5) In this paragraph "voting area" means a local government area in Scotland or a county or county borough in Wales.
12. A counting officer shall, as soon as possible after his Chief Counting Officer has made the certification required by section 1(7) or 2(7), forward to the Secretary of State—

(a) the packets of ballot papers in his possession,

(b) the ballot paper accounts and the statements of rejected ballot papers and of the result of the verification of the ballot paper accounts,

1372

(c) the tendered votes lists, the lists of blind voters assisted by companions, the lists of votes marked by the presiding officer and the related statements, and the declarations made by the companions of blind voters,

(d) the packets of counterfoils and certificates as to employment on duty on the day of the poll,

(e) the packets containing marked copies of registers and of lists of proxies,

endorsing on each packet a description of its contents and the name of the area for which the counting officer was appointed.
Application of enactments
13.—(1) The provisions set out in column (1) of Tables I to 4 below shall have effect in relation to the referendum in Scotland.
(2) The provisions set out in column (1) of Tables 1 to 3 and 5 below shall have effect in relation to the referendum in Wales.
(3) In their application for the purposes of a referendum, the provisions set out in column (1) of the Tables below shall have effect with the modifications shown in column (2) and any other necessary modifications; in particular, except where the context otherwise requires—

(a) a reference to an election shall he construed as a reference to a referendum,

(b) a reference to a constituency shall he construed as a reference to a local government area in Scotland or a county or county borough in Wales,

(c) a reference to voting for, or a vote for, a candidate shall be construed as a reference to voting for, or a vote for, a proposition,

(d) a reference to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate, or furthering a person's candidature, shall be construed as a reference to promoting or procuring a particular result in a referendum,

(e)a reference to the return of a person shall be construed as a reference to a particular result of a referendum,

(f) a reference to a person voting as an elector shall be construed as a reference to a person voting on his own behalf,

(g) a reference to a person's entitlement as an elector to an absent vote shall be construed as a reference to a person's entitlement to vote by post on his own behalf or to vote by proxy,

(h) where anything is required to be done in the presence of election, polling, counting or other agents, the reference to the presence of agents shall be ignored,

(i) a reference to anything being prescribed shall be construed as a reference to its being provided for by a provision of subordinate legislation applied by this Schedule, and

(j) a form which is required to be used may be used with such variations as the circumstances may require, and

(k) a reference to the registration officer is a reference to the relevant registration officer appointed under section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1983; and for the purpose of the exercise of a registration officer's functions in relation to a referendum, sections 52(1) to (4) (discharge of registration duties) and 54(1), (3) and (4) (payment of expenses of registration) of the 1983 Act shall have effect.

TABLE 1

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

Section 18 (polling districts and polling places)

For subsections (1) to (8) substitute—

"(1) Every voting area shall be divided into the same polling districts, each with the same polling place, as have effect for the purposes of local government elections.

(2) Subsection (1) shall have effect subject to any direction of a returning officer changing polling districts or places where he considers it necessary to do so by reason of special circumstances.

(3) In this section "voting area" means a local government area in Scotland or a county or county borough in Wales.".

Section 23(1) and (2) (election rules, and returning officer's general duty)

Section 29(3) to (4A) and (5) to (9) (payments by and to returning officer)

A reference to a returning officer is to be construed as a reference to a returning officer, a counting officer or a Chief Counting Officer.

Section 30(1) to (3) (taxation of returning officer's account)

A reference to a returning officer shall be construed as a reference to a returning officer, a counting officer or a Chief Counting Officer.

Section 47(1) (loan of equipment for local elections)

Omit the words "at a local government election".

Section 49(2), (4) and (5) (effect of registers)

In subsection (5)—

(a) omit "a parliamentary or", and

(b) omit "prevent the rejection of the vote on a scrutiny or".

Section 50(b) and (c) (effect of misdescription)

Section 52 (discharge of registration duties)

Section 60 (personation)

Section 61 (other voting offences)

For subsections (2) to (4) substitute—

"(2) A person shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) he votes otherwise than by proxy—

(i) more than once in the same voting area,

(ii) in more than one voting area, or

(iii) in any voting area when there is in force an appointment of a person to

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

vote as his proxy in the referendum in another voting area, or

(b) he votes on his own behalf in person and is entitled to vote by post, or

(c) he votes on his own behalf in person knowing that a person appointed to vote as his proxy has already voted in person or is entitled to vote by post, or

(d) he applies for a person to be appointed as his proxy to vote for him without applying for the cancellation of a previous appointment of a third person then in force or without withdrawing a pending application for such an appointment.

(3) A person shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) he votes as proxy for the same person either—

(i) more than once in the same voting area, or

(ii) in more than one voting area, or

(b) he votes in person as proxy for a person and is entitled to vote by post as proxy for that person, or

(c) he votes in person as proxy for someone whom he knows already to have voted in person.

(4) A person shall also be guilty of an offence if he votes as proxy in any electoral area for more than two persons of whom he is not the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild.

(4A) In this section "voting area" means a local government area in Scotland or a county or county borough in Wales.

(4B) In this section a reference to voting more than once is, in relation to the referendum in Scotland, a reference to voting more than once with either or both of the two forms of ballot paper.".

Section 63 (breach of official duty)

The reference in subsection (3)(b) to a returning officer shall be construed as a reference to a returning officer, a counting officer or a Chief Counting Officer.

Section 65 (tampering with papers)

The reference in subsection (3) to a returning officer shall be construed as a reference to a returning officer, a counting officer or a Chief Counting Officer.

Section 66 (requirement of secrecy)

For subsection (l)(b) substitute—

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

"(b) every Member of Parliament and councillor so attending".

Section 92 (broadcasting from outside the United Kingdom).

Section 94(1) (imitation poll cards)

Section 95 (schools and rooms for meetings)

For subsection (1) substitute— "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person is entitled, for the purpose of holding a public meeting to promote a particular result in a referendum, to use free of charge at reasonable times during the campaign period any meeting room to which this section applies.

(1A) In subsection (1) "the campaign period" means the period of 17 days ending with the day before the date of the referendum.".

Omit subsection (2).

In subsection (3), omit "situated in the constituency".

In subsection (4), omit "or on whose behalf.

In subsection (5), for "candidate" substitute "person".

Section 97 (disturbances at election meetings)

For subsection (2) substitute— "(2) This section applies to a meeting in connection with a referendum held during the campaign period.

(2A) In subsection (2) "the campaign period" means the period of 17 days ending with the day before the date of the referendum.".

Section 100(1) and (2) (illegal canvassing by police officers)

In subsection (1), for the words from "from giving his vote" to the end substitute "from giving his vote, in a referendum, in a local government area wholly or partly within the police area".

Sections 101 to 104 (conveyance of voters)

Section 105(1) and (3) (access to polling place by sea)

The reference in subsection (1) to a county constituency shall be construed as a reference to a local government area in Scotland or a county or county borough in Wales.

Section 109 (payments for exhibition of election notices)

Section 110 (printer's name and address on election publications)

For subsection (3) substitute— "(3) A person acting in contravention of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.".

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

Section 111 (prohibition of paid canvassers)

Section 112(a) and (c) (providing money for illegal purposes)

Sections 113 to 115 (bribery, treating and undue influence)

Section 116(a) (rights of creditors)

Section 117(2) (granting employees right of absence to vote)

In section 118 (interpretation of Part 11), the definitions of "money", "pecuniary reward" and "payment".

Section 160(4), (5) and (7) (persons guilty of corrupt or illegal practices)

This section has effect only for the purposes of the application of section 173; and a reference in subsection (4) or (5) to an election is not affected by paragraph 13(3)(a) of this Schedule.

Section 167

Sections 168 to 170 (prosecutions for corrupt and illegal practices)

Section 173

Sections 174 to 176

Section 178 (prosecution of offences committed outside the United Kingdom)

Section 179 (offences by associations)

Section 181(1) (Director of Public Prosecutions)

Section 184 (service of notices)

In section 185 (interpretation of Part III), the definitions of "judicial office", "money" and "pecuniary reward", "payment", and "public office".

Section 200(1) and (2) (public notices, and declarations)

In section 202 (interpretation), the definitions in subsection (1) of "the absent voters' list", "citizen of the Union" and "relevant citizen of the Union", "elector", "legal incapacity", "the list of

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

proxies", "parliamentary elections rules", "person", and "voter"; and subsection (2).

Section 203(1) (local government provisions as to England and Wales)

Section 204(1), (3) and (5) (general application to Scotland)

Schedule 5 (use of schools and meeting rooms)

Omit paragraphs 1 and 2. For "candidate" and "candidates" substitute "person" and "persons".

TABLE 2

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS RULES (SCHEDULE 1 TO THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983)

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

Rule 20 (ballot papers: official mark)

For paragraph (2) substitute— "(2) The official mark shall be kept secret.".

Rule 21 (disclosure of vote)

Omit "to question the election or return".

Rule 22(1) and (2) (use of schools and public rooms)

Rule 23(1) (notice of poll)

For "in the statement of persons nominated include" substitute "publish, not later than the tenth day before the date of the referendum,".

Rule 24 (postal ballot papers)

Omit "and in no event later than any date which may be prescribed as the last date for the purpose".

Rule 25 (provision of polling stations)

Rule 26 (appointment of presiding officers and clerks)

For the words from "but he shall not appoint" to the end substitute "and the counting officer shall appoint and pay such persons as may be necessary for the purpose of the counting of the votes".

Rule 28(1) to (3) (issue of official poll cards)

Rule 29 (equipment of polling stations)

For the notice referred to in paragraph (4) substitute the notice in the Appendix to this Schedule.

For paragraph (5) substitute— "(5) In every compartment of every polling station a notice shall be exhibited.

(5A) In Scotland, the notice shall be in the following form:

'Read the ballot papers carefully. On each ballot paper, mark a cross (X) in the box to the right of the proposition you are voting for. Put no other

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

mark on the ballot papers or your vote may not be counted.'.

(5B) In Wales, the notice shall be in the following form:

'Mark one box only. Put no other mark on the ballot paper or your vote may not be counted.

Marciwch un blwch yn unig. Peidiwch â rhoi unrhyw fare arall ar y papur pleidleisio neu fe all na chaiff eich pleidlais ei chyfrif.'.

Rule 31 (notification of requirement of secrecy)

The duty under paragraph (b) shall be the duty not of the returning officer but of the counting officer.

Rule 32(1), (3) and (4) (admission to polling station)

In paragraph (1), for sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—

"(a) the Member of Parliament for the constituency within which the polling station is situated;

(b) a member of the council for—

(i) in Scotland, the local government area, or

(ii) in Wales, the county or county borough, within which the polling station is situated;".

Rule 33 (keeping order in station)

Rule 34 (sealing of ballot boxes)

Rule 35 (questions to be put to voters)

For paragraphs (1) and (2) substitute—

"(1) The presiding officer may put to any person applying for a ballot paper at the time of his application, but not afterwards, one or both of the relevant questions.

(2) In the case of a person applying to vote on his own behalf, the relevant questions are—

(a) 'Are you the person registered in the register of local government electors [for this local government area] [for this county] [for this county borough] as follows?' (read the whole entry from the register.)

(b) 'Have you already voted, here or elsewhere, in this referendum, otherwise than as a proxy for some other person?'".

(2A) In the case of a person applying as proxy, the relevant questions are—

(a) 'Are you the person whose name appears as A.B. in [the list of proxies for this referendum] as entitled to vote as proxy on behalf of CD.?'

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

(b) 'Have you already voted here or elsewhere in this referendum as proxy on behalf of CD.?'

(2B) In the case of a person applying as proxy, the presiding officer may

put the following additional question—

'Are you the husband [wife], parent, grandparent, brother [sister], child or grandchild of CD.?'

and if that question is not answered in the affirmative the following question—

'Have you already voted in this referendum on behalf of two persons of whom you are not the husband [wife], parent, grandparent, brother [sister], child or grandchild?'".

In the case of the referendum in Wales, article 5 of, and Forms 1 to 3 in Schedule 2 to, the Representation of the People (Welsh Forms) Order 1989 (which prescribe Welsh versions of questions) shall have effect in relation to rule 35 as applied in this Table, with the following modifications—

(a) in Form 1—

(i) for "seneddol" substitute "llywodraeth leol",

(ii) for "yr etholiad hwn" substitute "[y sir hon] [y fwrdreistref hon]", and

(iii) for "yr is-etholiad [etholiad cyffredinol] hwn" substitute "y refferendwm hwn",

(b) in Form 2, for "yr etholiad hwn" and "yr is-etholiad [etholiad cyffredinol] hwn" substitute "y refferendwm hwn", and

(c) in Form 3—

(i) for "yr etholiad hwn" substitute "y refferendwm hwn", and

(ii) omit "ac yn yr etholaeth hon".

Rule 36 (challenge of voter)

For "a candidate or his election or polling agent" substitute "a Member of Parliament or a member of the council for a local government area in Scotland or a county or county borough in Wales".

Rule 37 (voting procedure)

In the case of the referendum in Scotland, a person may apply under this rule for either or both of the two forms of ballot paper.

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

Rule 38 (votes marked by presiding officer)

Rule 39 (voting by blind persons)

Rule 40 (tendered ballot papers)

Rule 41 (spoilt ballot papers)

Rule 42 (adjournment of poll in case of riot)

After "returning officer'' insert "and the counting officer".

Rule 43 (procedure on close of poll)

A reference to the returning officer is to be construed as a reference to the counting officer.

Rule 45 (the count)

A reference to the returning officer is, except in paragraph (2), to be construed as a reference to the counting officer.

A reference to counting agents or election agents is to be construed as a reference to observers.

In paragraph (5), for "election agent" substitute "observer present at the verification".

In paragraph (6), for "in so far as he and the agents agree" substitute ", if his Chief Counting Officer approves,"; and omit from "For the purposes of this exception" to the end.

For paragraph (1) substitute—

"(7) During the excluded time the counting officer shall take proper precautions for the security of the ballot papers and documents".

Rule 47 (rejected ballot papers)

A reference to the returning officer is to be construed as a reference to the counting officer.

In paragraph (3), omit from "and shall add to the endorsement" to the end.

Rule 54 (sealing up of ballot papers)

A reference to the returning officer is to be construed as a reference to the counting officer.

The Appendix of Forms: form of declaration to be made by the companion of a blind voter

For "election now being held in this constituency"—

(a) in the case of the referendum in Scotland substitute "referendum now being held in Scotland under section 1(1) of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997". and

(b) in the case of the referendum in Wales substitute "referendum now being held in Wales under section 2(1) of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997".

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

For "said election" in each place substitute "said referendum".

In the case of the referendum in Wales, article 5 of, and Form 6 in Schedule 2 to, the Representation of the People (Welsh Forms) Order 1989 (which prescribe a Welsh version of the form of declaration to be made by the companion of a blind voter) shall have effect in relation to the form in the Appendix as applied in this Table, with the following modifications—

(a) for "yr etholiad a gynhelir yn awr yn yr etholaeth hon" substitute "y refferendwm yng Nghymru a gynhelir yn awr o dan adran 2(1) Dedff Refferenda (Yr Alban a Chymru) 1997", and

(b) for the second and third "yr etholiad" substitute "y refferendwm".

TABLE 3

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1985

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

In the application of any provision of the 1985 Act to a referendum, a reference to prescribed requirements is to be construed as a reference to the requirements of the provisions of—

(a) in the case of the referendum in Scotland, the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1986, and

(b) in the case of the referendum in Wales, the Representation of the People Regulations 1986, as applied by Tables 4 and 5.

Section 5 (manner of voting)

In subsection (1), for "at a parliamentary or local government election" substitute "in a referendum".

For subsection (6) substitute—

"(6) For the purposes of the provisions of this Act and the Representation of the People Act 1983, a person entitled to vote in the referendum on his own behalf is entitled to vote by post or by proxy if he is shown in the absent voters list for the referendum.".

In subsection (7), for the definition of "appropriate rules" substitute— '"appropriate rules' means the parliamentary elections rules as they have effect for the purposes of a referendum.".

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

Section 7 (absent vote at a particular election and absent voters list)

In subsection (1)—

(a) for "at a particular parliamentary or local government election" substitute "in a referendum", and

(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—

"(b) he is satisfied that the applicant will be entitled to vote in the referendum,".

In subsection (2)—

(a) for "elections of the kind in question", in each place, substitute "local government elections", and

(b) for "in respect of a particular parliamentary or local government election" substitute "in respect of a referendum".

In subsection (4)—

(a) for "in respect of each parliamentary or local government election" substitute "in respect of a referendum",

(b) for paragraph (a)(ii) substitute—

"(ii) those who are shown in the record kept under section 6 of this Act as voting by post at local government elections, together with the addresses provided by them in their applications under that section or, as the case may be, subsection (2) above as the addresses to which their ballot papers are to be sent,", and

(c) for paragraph (b) substitute—

"(b) a list ("the list of proxies") of those whose applications under this section to vote by proxy in the referendum have been granted or who are shown in the record kept under section 6 of this Act as voting by proxy at local government elections, together with the names and addresses of those appointed as their proxies.".

Section 8 (proxies)

In subsection (1), for "at any parliamentary or local government election" substitute "in a referendum".

For subsection (2) substitute—

"(2) The elector cannot have more than one person at a time appointed as proxy to vote for him in the referendum.".

Omit subsection (3).

In subsection (3A)—

(a) for "at a local government election" substitute "in a referendum", and

(b) for "at that election as an elector" substitute "in the referendum on his own behalf.

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

Subsection (6) shall not have effect to permit applications in relation to referendums; but an appointment made under subsection (6) which has effect in relation to local government elections shall have effect in relation to a referendum.

For subsection (7) substitute—

"(7) Where the elector applies to the registration officer for the appointment of a proxy to vote for him in a referendum the registration officer shall make the appointment if the application meets the prescribed requirements and he is satisfied that the elector is or will be—

(a) entitled to vote in the referendum, and

(b) entitled to vote by proxy in the referendum by virtue of an application under section 7 of this Act,

and that the proxy is capable of being and willing to be appointed.".

For subsections (9) and (10) substitute—

"(9) The appointment shall remain in force for the referendum, unless cancelled by notice from the elector to the registration officer.".

Section 9 (voting as proxy)

In subsections (1), (3) and (9), for "parliamentary or local government election" substitute "referendum".

Subsections (4) to (6) shall not have effect to permit applications in relation to referendums; but the record kept under subsection (6) shall have effect for the purposes of the application to the referendums of subsection (9).

In subsections (8) and (9), for "elections of the kind in question" substitute "local government elections".

In subsection (10), for "is or will be registered in the register of parliamentary electors, local government electors, or both (as the case may be)" substitute "will be entitled to vote in the referendum".

Section 12(3) and (4) (offences)

TABLE 4

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1986

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

In regulation 4(1) (interpretation), the definitions of "available for inspection", "electoral area",

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

"local authority", "local government area", "postal proxy", "register", "registration area" and "registration officer".

Regulation 5(1)(b) and (2) (forms)

Regulation 6(1) and (2) (sending of applications, notices, &c.)

Regulation 8 (misnomers) Regulation 10 (official poll card)

Regulation 12 (interference with notices, &c.)

Regulation 61 (absent voters: general requirements for applications)

Regulation 64 (applications in respect of a particular election)

Regulation 65 (additional requirements for applications for appointments of proxy)

Regulation 66 (additional requirements for application by proxies to vote by post at a particular election)

Regulation 67(1) to (5) (closing dates for applications)

Regulation 68 (grant or refusal of applications)

The reference to Form C shall be construed as a reference to the form of proxy paper in the Appendix to this Schedule.

Regulation 70 (cancellation of proxy appointment)

Regulation 72 (records and lists)

Regulation 73 (marked register for polling stations)

Regulation 74 (certificate of employment at an election)

Regulation 75 (interpretation of Part V)

Regulation 77 (form of declaration of identity)

Omit the words after "Form G".

Regulation 78(1)(a) (persons entitled to be present at issue and receipt of postal ballot papers)

Regulation 79 (notification of requirement of secrecy)

Regulation 81(1) and (2) (marking of postal ballot papers)

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

Regulation 82 (refusal to issue postal ballot paper)

For the words from "more than one ballot paper" to the end substitute "more than one of each form of ballot paper in respect of that elector".

Regulation 83(1) and (2) (envelopes)

Regulation 84 (delivery of postal ballot papers to post office)

Regulation 85 (provision of postal voters' ballot box)

For paragraph (2) substitute— "(2) Every ballot box shall, while empty, be locked by the returning officer and sealed with his seal in such manner as to prevent its being opened without breaking the seal.".

Regulation 86 (sealing up of special lists and counterfoils)

Regulation 87 (spoilt postal ballot papers)

In paragraph (1)—

(a) for "his postal paper" substitute "a postal ballot paper", and

(b) for "the spoilt postal ballot paper" substitute "both forms of ballot paper".

Omit paragraph (2).

In paragraph (3)—

(a) for "another postal ballot paper or, as the case may be, ballot papers" substitute "replacement ballot papers", and

(b) for "another ballot paper (or ballot papers)" substitute "replacement ballot papers".

In paragraph (5), for the words "The spoilt postal ballot paper, and any other postal ballot paper issued with it under regulation 76 above," substitute "The returned postal ballot papers".

Regulation 88 (receipt of covering envelope)

Regulation 89(1) and (2) and (4) to (7) (opening of postal voters' ballot box)

In paragraph (4) for the words from "and every such ballot box" to the end substitute "; and every ballot box shall, while empty, be locked by the returning officer and sealed with his seal in such manner as to prevent its being opened without breaking the seal.".

Regulation 90 (opening of covering envelopes)

Regulation 91 (sealing up of rejected votes and declarations of identity)

Regulation 92 (opening of ballot paper envelopes)

Regulation 94 (forwarding of documents)

For paragraph (1) substitute— "(1) The returning officer shall, as soon as possible after the Chief Counting Officer for

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

Scotland has made the certification required by section 1(7) of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997, forward to the Secretary of State—

(a) any packets referred to in regulations 86, 87, 91 and 92, endorsing on each packet a description of its contents and the name of the local government area for which the returning officer acts, and

(b) a statement of the number of postal ballot papers issued by him in such form, and giving such details about the papers, as the Secretary of State may require.".

Omit paragraphs (3) and (4).

In Schedule 2 (forms), Form D (elector's official poll card)

On the front of the card, for the heading

"REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS" substitute "REFERENDUM".

On the back of the card—

(a) for the heading substitute "REFERENDUM",

(b) for "Constituency" substitute "Local government area",

(c) in paragraph 2, for "a ballot paper" substitute "one of each of two forms of ballot paper (unless you ask for only one)",

(d) in paragraph 2, for "on it" substitute "on each form of ballot paper",

(e) for paragraphs 3 to 5 substitute—

"3. Take the ballot papers to one of the voting compartments and read them carefully.

4. On each ballot paper mark a cross (X) in the box to the right of the proposition you are voting for. Put no other mark on the ballot paper or your vote may not be counted.

5. Fold each ballot paper in two. Show the official mark to the presiding officer, but do not let anyone see your vote. Put the ballot papers in the ballot box and leave the polling station.".

In Schedule 2 (forms), Form E (proxy's official poll card)

On the back of the card, for "elector's ballot paper" substitute "elector's ballot papers".

In Schedule 2 (forms), Form F (certificate of employment)

For the heading "ELECTION IN THE CONSTITUENCY" substitute "REFERENDUM LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA".

For "constituency named above" and "above constituency" substitute "local government area named above".

For "election" in each place substitute "referendum".

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

In Schedule 2 (forms), Form G (declaration of identity)

On the front of the form, for the heading

"REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS" substitute "REFERENDUM".

For "Ballot Paper No." substitute "Ballot Paper Nos.".

For "the ballot paper numbered as above was sent" substitute "the ballot papers numbered above were sent".

On the back of the form—

(a) for paragraphs 2 and 3 substitute—

"2. Read the ballot papers carefully.

3. On each ballot paper mark a cross (X) in the box to the right of the proposition you are voting for. Put no other mark on the ballot paper or your vote may not be counted.",

(b) in paragraph 4, for "ballot paper" in each place substitute "ballot papers",

(c) for paragraph 5 substitute—

"5. If you receive more than one of either form of ballot paper, remember that it is illegal to vote more than once (otherwise than as proxy) with the same form of ballot paper.",

(d) in paragraph 6, for "election" substitute "referendum", and

(e) for paragraph 7 substitute—

"7. If you inadvertently spoilt either form of ballot paper, you can apply to the returning officer for another one. To do this you MUST RETURN ALL OF THE POSTAL BALLOT PAPERS YOU HAVE RECEIVED, including the spoilt ballot paper. In addition, in your application for fresh postal ballot papers you MUST RETURN, in your own envelope, the declaration of identity and the envelopes marked 'A' and 'B'. Remember that there is little time available if fresh postal ballot papers are to be issued and counted.".

TABLE 5

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE REGULATIONS 1986

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

In regulation 4(1) (interpretation), the definitions of "available for

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

inspection", "postal proxy", "register", and "registration officer".

Regulation 6(1)(b) (forms)

Regulation 7 (sending of applications, notices, &c.)

Regulation 9 (misnomers)

Regulation 11 (official poll card)

The reference to Form E is to be construed as a reference to the form of elector's official poll card in Part II of the Schedule to the Representation of the People (Welsh Forms) Order 1986 with the following modifications—

(a) on the front of the card, for "REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS" and "DEDDFAU CYNRYCHIOLAETH Y BOBL" substitute "REFERENDUM" and "REFFERENDWM",

(b) on the front of the card, for "Constituency" and "Etholaeth" substitute "County / County Borough" and "Sir / Bwrdeistref Sirol",

(c) on the back of the card, for "PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION" and "ETHOLIAD SENEDDOL" substitute "REFERENDUM" and "REFFERENDWM",

(d) on the back of the card, for the third paragraph in English substitute—

"Take the ballot paper to one of the voting compartments and read it carefully. On the ballot paper mark a cross (X) in the

box to the right of the proposition you are voting for. Put no other mark on the ballot paper or your vote may not be counted.",

(e) on the back of the card, for the third paragraph in Welsh substitute—

"Ewch â'r papur pleidleisio i un o'r cabanau pleidleisio a darllenwch ef yn ofalus. Ar y papur pleidleisio rhowch groes (X) yn y blwch i'r dde o'r gosodiad yr ydych yn pleidleisio drosto. Peidiwch a rhoi unrhyw fare arall ar y papur pleidleisio neu fe all na chaiff eich pleidlais ei chyfrif.",

(f) on the back of the card, in the penultimate and final paragraphs in English and in Welsh, for "this election" and "yr etholiad hwn" substitute "the referendum" and "y refferendwm".

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

(g) on the back of the card, omit the fifth paragraph in English and in Welsh.

The reference to Form F is to be construed as a reference to the form of proxy's official poll card in Part II of the Schedule to the Representation of the People (Welsh Forms) Order 1986 with the following modifications—

(a) on the front of the card, omit "REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS" AND DEDDFAU CYNRYCHIOLAETH Y BOBL",

(b) on the front of the card, for "PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION" and "ETHOLIAD SENEDDOL" substitute "REFERENDUM" and "REFFERENDWM",

(c) on the front of the card, for "Etholaeth" and "Constituency" substitute "Sir / Bwrdeistref Sirol" and "County / County Borough",

(d) on the back of the card, in the penultimate and final paragraphs in English and in Welsh, for "this election" and "yr etholiad hwn" substitute "the referendum" and "y refferendwm".

Regulation 13 (interference with notices, &c.)

Regulation 63 (absent voters: general requirements for applications)

Regulation 66 (additional requirements for applications in respect of a particular election)

Regulation 67 (additional requirements for applications for appointment of proxy)

Regulation 68 (additional requirements for applications by proxies to vote by post at a particular election)

Regulation 69(1) to (5) (closing dates for applications)

Regulation 70 (grant or refusal of applications)

The reference to Form D is to be construed as a reference to the form of proxy paper in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People (Welsh Forms) Order 1989 with the following modifications—

(a) under "EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978" and "DEDDF ETHOLIADAU SENEDD EWROP 1978" insert "REFERENDUM" and "REFFERENDWM",

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

(b) on the right hand side of the form, opposite to "Local government electoral area(s)" insert "*County / County Borough",

(c) on the right hand side of the form, opposite to "Rhanbarth(au) etholiadol Uywodraeth leol" insert "*Sir / Bwrdeistref Sirol",

(d) omit the words from "*[who qualifies as an overseas elector" to "mewn perthynas â'r etholaeth uchod]",

(e) after "to vote for him/her at" insert "the referendum",

(f) after "i bleidleisio drosto/drosti yn" insert "y refferendwm",

(g) omit the words from "*[the * [parliamentary] [local government]" to "[etholaeth Senedd Ewrop] uchod.",

(h) before "any * [parliamentary or European Parliamentary election]" insert "and",

(i) before "unrhyw * [etholiad seneddol neu etholiad Senedd Ewrop]" insert "ac",

(j) in paragraph 2 in English, for the first "a particular election" substitute "the referendum", for the second "a particular election" substitute "the referendum only", for "the election specified in the proxy paper" substitute "the referendum" and before "at any parliamentary, European Parliamentary" insert "in the referendum and",

(k) in paragraph 2 in Welsh, for the first "etholiad penodol" substitute "y refferendwm", for the second "etholiad penodol" substitute "y refferendwm yn unig", for "yr etholiad a nodir yn y pappur dirprwy" substitute "y refferendwm" and before "mewn unrhyw etholiad seneddol" insert "yn y refferendwm ac",

(1) in paragraph 4 in English, after "However, you may not vote as proxy at" insert "the referendum or at",

(m) in paragraph 4 in Welsh, after "Er hynny, ni chewch bleidleisio fel dirprwy yn" insert "y refferendwm neu yn",

(n) in paragraph 5 in English, before "a particular election", in both places, insert "the referendum or at", and

(o) in paragraph 5 in Welsh, before "mewn etholiad penodol", in both places, insert "yn y refferendwm neu".

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

Regulation 72 (cancellation of proxy appointment)

Regulation 74 (records and lists)

Regulation 75 (marked register for polling stations)

Regulation 76 (certificate of employment at an election)

The reference to Form G is to be construed as a reference to the form of certificate of employment in the Appendix to this Schedule.

Regulation 77 (interpretation of Part V)

Regulation 79 (form of declaration of identity)

For the words from "shall be" to the end substitute "shall be in the form of Form 3 in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People (Welsh Forms) Order 1989 with the following modifications—

(a) on the front of the form, for the headings substitute— "REFERENDUM REFFERENDWM",

(b) on the back of the form, for paragraphs 2 and 3 in English substitute—

"2. Read the statements printed on the ballot paper carefully. Mark your vote secretly in the following way. If you agree with the statement "I AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A WELSH ASSEMBLY", put a cross (X) in the box to the right of that statement. If you agree with the statement "I DO NOT AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A WELSH ASSEMBLY", put a cross (X) in the box to the right of that statement. Put no other mark on the ballot paper or your vote may not be counted. If you cannot vote without assistance, the person assisting you must not disclose how you have voted.",

(e) on the back of the form, for paragraphs 2 and 3 in Welsh substitute—

"2. Darllenwch yn ofalus y datganiadau sydd wedi eu hargraffu ar y papur peidleisio. Ar y papur pleidleisio rhowch groes (X) yn y blwch i'r dde o'r gosodiad yr ydych yn pleidleisio drosto. Peidiwch â rhoi unrhyw fare arall ar y papur pleidleisio neu fe all na chaiff eich pleidlais ei chyfrif. Os na fedrweh bleidleisio heb gymorth, rhaid i'r person sy'n eich cynorthwyo beidio â datgelu sut yr ydych wedi pleidleisio.",

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

(f) on the back of the form, in paragraph 5 in English and in Welsh, for "same election" and "yr un etholiad" substitute "referendum" and "refferendwm",

(g) on the back of the form, in paragraph 6 in English and in Welsh, for "this election" and "yr etholiad hwn" substitute "the referendum" and "y refferendwm", and

(h) on the back of the form, renumber paragraphs 4 to 7 in English and in Welsh accordingly.

Regulation 80(1)(a) (persons entitled to be present at issue and receipt of postal ballot papers)

Regulation 81 (notification of requirement of secrecy)

Regulation 83(1) and (2) (marking of postal ballot papers)

Regulation 84 (refusal to issue postal ballot paper)

Regulation 85(1) and (2) (envelopes)

Regulation 86 (delivery of postal ballot papers to post office)

Regulation 87 (provision of postal voters' ballot box)

For paragraph (2) substitute— "(2) Every ballot box shall, while empty, be locked by the returning officer and sealed with his seal in such manner as to prevent its being opened without breaking the seal.".

Regulation 88 (sealing up of special lists and counterfoils)

Regulation 89 (spoilt postal ballot papers)

Omit paragraph (2). In paragraph (3)— (a) omit "or, as the case may be, ballot papers", and (b) omit "(or ballot papers)". In paragraph (5) omit ", and any other postal ballot paper issued with it under Regulation 78 above".

Regulation 90 (receipt of covering envelope)

Regulation 91(1) and (2) and (4) to (7) (opening of postal voters' ballot box)

In paragraph (4) for the words from "and every such ballot box" to the end substitute "; and every ballot box shall, while empty, be locked by the returning officer and sealed with his seal in such manner as to prevent its being opened without breaking the seal.".

(1)

(2)

Provision

Modification

Regulation 92 (opening of covering envelopes)

Regulation 93 (sealing up of rejected votes and declarations of identity)

Regulation 94 (opening of ballot paper envelopes)

Regulation 96 (forwarding of documents)

For paragraph (1) substitute— "(1) The returning officer shall, as soon as possible after the Chief Counting Officer for Wales has made the certification required by section 2(7) of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997, forward to the Secretary of State—

(a) the packets referred to in regulations 88, 89, 93 and 94, endorsing on each packet a description of its contents and the name of the county or county borough for which the returning officer acts, and

(b) a statement of the number of postal ballot papers issued by him in such form, and giving such details about the papers, as the Secretary of State may require.".

Omit paragraphs (2), (4) and (5).

APPENDIX
FORMS
FORM OF BACK OF BALLOT PAPER: REFERENDUM IN SCOTLAND
No.
Referendum: [name of local government area]
Note.- The number on the ballot paper is to correspond with that on the counterfoil and is to be printed in small characters.
FORM OF BACK OF BALLOT PAPER: REFERENDUM IN WALES
No./Rhif………
*County/County Borough……… *Sir/Bwrdeistref Sirol
*Delete whichever is inapplicable
*Dileer yr un anaddas
Note.- The number on the ballot paper is to correspond with that on the counterfoil and is to be printed in small characters.
Sylwer.- Rhaid i'r rhif ar y papur pleidleisio gyfateb â'r rhif ar yr wrthddalen a chael ei argraffu mewn cymeriadau bach.
FORM OF GUIDANCE FOR VOTERS: REFERENDUM IN SCOTLAND
GUIDANCE FOR VOTERS
1. When you are given ballot papers make sure they are stamped with the official mark.
2. Take the ballot papers to one of the voting compartments and read them carefully. On each ballot paper mark a cross (X) in the box to the right of the proposition you are voting for. Put no other mark on the ballot paper or your vote may not be counted.
3. Fold each ballot paper in two. Show the official mark to the presiding officer, but do not let anyone see your vote. Put the ballot papers in the ballot box and leave the polling station.
4. If by mistake you spoil a ballot paper, show it to the presiding officer and ask for another one.
FORM OF GUIDANCE FOR VOTERS: REFERENDUM IN WALES
GUIDANCE FOR VOTERS
1. When you are given a ballot paper make sure it is stamped with the official mark.
2. Take the ballot paper to one of the voting compartments and read it carefully. On the ballot paper mark a cross (X) in the box to the right of the proposition you are voting for. Put no other mark on the ballot paper or your vote may not be counted.
3. Fold the ballot paper in two. Show the official mark to the presiding officer, but do not let anyone see your vote. Put the ballot paper in the ballot box and leave the polling station.
4. If by mistake you spoil a ballot paper, show it to the presiding officer and ask for another one.
CYFARWYDDYD I BLEIDLEISWYR
1. Pan roir i chi bapur pleidleisio gwnewch yn si r iddo gael ei stampio â'r marc swyddogol.
2. Ewch â'r papur pleidleisio i un o'r cabanau pleidleisio a darllenwch of yn ofalus. Ar y papur pleidleisio rhowch groes (X) yn y blwch i'r dde o'r gosodiad yr ydych yn pleidleisio drosto. Peidiwch â rhoi unrhyw fare arall ar y papur pleidleisio neu fe all na chaiff eich pleidlais ei chyfrif.
3. Plygwch y papur yn ddau. Dangoswch y marc swyddogol i'r swyddog Ilywyddu, and peidiwch â gadael i neb weld eich pleidlais. Rhowch y papur pleidleisio yn y blwch pleidleisiau a mynd allan o'r orsaf bleidleisio.
4. Os bydd i chi drwy gamgymeriad ddifetha eich papur pleidleisio, ewch a'i ddangos i'r swyddog Ilywyddu a gofyn am un arall.
CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT: REFERENDUM IN WALES
CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT
TYSTYSGRIF CYFLOGAETH
REFERENDUM / REFFERENDWM
*County / County Borough ………*Sir / Bwrdeistref Sirol
I certify that (name) ………
who is numbered………in the register of electors for the *County / County Borough named above, cannot reasonably be expected to go in person to the polling station allotted to him / her at the referendum on (date of poll) ……… by reason of the particular circumstances of his / her employment on that date for a purpose connected with the referendum—
Yr wyf yn tystio nad yw'n rhesymol disgwyl i (enw) ………
rhif ……… yng nghofrestr etholwyr y *Sir / Fwrdeistref Sirol a enwyd uchod, fynd yn bersonol i'r orsaf bleidleisio a bennwyd iddo / iddi yn y refferendwm ar (dyddiad y bleidlais) ……… oherwydd amgylchiadau arbennig sy'n gysylltiedig â'i gyflogaeth / chyflogaeth ar y dyddiad hwnnw at ddiben sy'n gysylltiedig â'r refferendwm—
as a constable.
*(a)
fel cwnstabl.
by me.
*(b)
gennyf fi.
Signature / Llofnod………
*Returning Officer / Police Officer
(Inspector or above).
*Swyddog Canlyniadau / Swyddog o'r Heddlu
(Arolygydd neu uwch).
Date / Dyddiad ………
* Delete whichever is inapplicable
* Dileer yr un anaddas
NOTE: The person named above is entitled to vote at any polling station of the above *County / County Borough on production and surrender of this certificate to the presiding officer.
NODYN: Y mae gan y person a enwyd uchod hawl i bleidleisio yn unrhyw un o orsafoedd pleidleisio y *Sir / Fwrdeistref Sirol uchod ar ôI dangos a rhoi�r dystysgrif hon i'r swyddog llywyddu.
PROXY PAPER: REFERENDUM IN SCOTLAND
FRONT OF PAPER
REFERENDUM PROXY PAPER
Local Government Area………
Electoral Ward………
Polling District………
Name of Proxy………
Address………
………
………
is hereby appointed as proxy for
(Name of elector) ………
who is qualified to be registered for
(Qualifying address) ………
to vote for him/her at
the referendum on
(date) ………
Signed……… ………Date
Electoral Registration Officer
BACK OF PAPER
YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE AS PROXY
1. This proxy paper gives you the right to vote as proxy on behalf of the elector whose name is given overleaf.
2. Your appointment as proxy will be for the referendum only. You have the right to vote as proxy only at the referendum specified in the proxy paper.
3. Prior to the elector applying to have you appointed as proxy, you should have been consulted and asked if you were capable of being, and willing to be, appointed as proxy, or you should have signed a statement to the effect that you were capable of being, and were willing to be appointed as proxy. You are capable of being appointed as proxy if you are at least 18 years old on polling day, a British or other Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of any other member state of the European Union, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and not for any reason disqualified from voting. If for any reason you are not capable of being, or are not willing to be, the proxy please advise the elector, without delay, in order that the elector may cancel the appointment.
4. You may vote as proxy at the polling station allotted to the elector on whose behalf you are appointed. However, you may not vote as proxy at the same referendum for more than two electors of whom you are not the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild. Shortly before polling day you will be sent a proxy poll card telling you where the polling station is. You do not need to take either the poll card or this proxy paper to the polling station but you may find it helpful to do so. You should note that the elector may still vote in person. If ballot papers are issued to the elector at the polling station before you apply there for ballot papers as the proxy, you will not be entitled to vote as the proxy.
5. You may also apply to vote by post as proxy at the referendum if the Electoral Registration Officer is satisfied that you cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the elector's polling station.
Any application to vote by post as proxy should be made on Form R.P.F. 11 REF (Scotland) which may be obtained from the Electoral Registration Officer. You should note that the Electoral Registration
1396
Officer cannot allow an application to vote by post at the referendum if he receives it after 5.00 p.m. on the eleventh working day before the poll.
6. It is an offence to vote, whether in person or by post, as proxy for some other person if you know that person is subject to a legal incapacity to vote, e.g. if that person has been convicted and is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is perhaps appropriate that at Report stage we reach the final series of amendments which echo the broadly constructive attitude that has been taken towards the Bill from all sides of the House. We recognise that there are significant differences of view and opinion and they have been fairly reflected as we have progressed through the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in his normal helpful, positive and supportive manner, suggested at virtually the earliest possible stage, for reasons that were totally altruistic, that the orders through which the referendum would be implemented should be incorporated into the Bill. After mature reflection and a quick consultation with my diary, I similarly came to the view that there was great merit in incorporating the orders in the Bill. This series of amendments is the means by which that is achieved. I shall discuss the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, later. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, Amendment No. 51:
Leave out lines 94 to 96.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I decided that it would be easier on the Minister if I highlighted the three or four issues that I wish to mention in this schedule by tabling probing amendments rather than making a speech of which the Minister has no notice and to which he may not be able to give a substantive reply. There is a huge amount of detail in Amendment No. 50. To follow that detail your Lordships would have to sit in the Library with a copy of the Representation of the People Act.
At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that once that exercise is done the reason for my suggesting a referendums Act becomes even more apparent. But I shall not go over that again.
Amendment No. 51 takes out the paragraph which states that,
"A counting officer shall, in accordance with any directions given by his Chief Counting Officer, appoint persons to observe the counting of the votes and the verification of the ballot paper accounts".
Normally in parliamentary and local government elections, names are suggested by the candidates for the people who will go to the count and verify that the procedure has been undertaken properly. They verify the ballot papers and that the counting has been done properly. The procedures are well rehearsed.
There is a limitation on the numbers. The returning officer can take into account the size of the premises available, how many people can reasonably be accommodated, and how many candidates are to be accommodated. It is clear that at general and local elections it is the candidates who nominate or suggest those who can go to the count on their behalf.
I merely probe this point. From where does the counting officer get his names? We come back to the campaigning organisations. I do not wish to go over all those difficulties. Is that where the counting officer looks for them? Alternatively, does he look to the political parties? Does he require balance between the "Yes" and the "No", given the referendum questions? The issue is more complicated with the two questions, but I shall leave the matter on the principal question, the "Yes" and the "No". Does he require a balance of persons to observe the counting of votes? Those are my points, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, in effect there is little between us in what we wish to achieve. The difficulty is the amendment. If it were accepted, it would make it impossible for anyone to observe the count. I hope that it will therefore be withdrawn.
It is important that the count is observed: that it is open and seen to be fair. On the point about where the chief counting officer and counting officers look for people whom they can approve to attend the count, I am happy to fall back on their judgment. I am sure that there will be people who will seek to attend the count. I am happy to rely on the judgment of the professionals in deciding who will be there.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the Minister says, I do not propose to put the amendment to a Division because if I were to win that would result in no observers being present at the count.
I had rather hoped that he would go a little further. I understand that the counting officer may look to Members of Parliament for that area and councillors. But I believe that the counting officer should look for a balance. While I understand that it might be difficult to frame in law, given Pepper v. Hart and other matters, it would have been nice to have received an assurance from the Minister on the record that he would expect the counting officer to look for a balance between the two sides of the proposition when he decides who should be observers at the count.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it would be quite proper for a counting officer to have in mind the attempt to achieve balance.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 51, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknishmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, Amendment No. 52:
Leave out lines 420 to 422.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment draws attention to the provisions of Rule 20 in the Representation of the People Act 1983. It involves the official mark. As noble Lords who voted recently in local government elections—it is all that we are allowed
1398
to do—will recall, a perforated mark is stamped on the ballot paper when it is handed over. If the ballot paper is not perforated when it turns up eventually at the count, it is not allowed. Indeed, the issue is a matter of dispute in the case of one parliamentary seat at the last election.
On the occasion of the referendum in Scotland, although not in Wales, the people presiding over the polling stations will have to stamp two ballot papers. I believe that that will add to the time taken to vote. It may not seem much, but if every person who votes at a busy time has to have his or her ballot paper stamped not once but twice, inevitably it will increase the time taken. It increases the danger of one or both papers being missed at that busy time. Is it wise to continue with that rule?
That brings me to my more general point. Why do we keep this rule? It may be an issue for wider debate, but I find it hard to understand what the perforation prevents. It may stop someone stealing a wad of ballot papers, filling them in, and popping them secretly into a ballot box somewhere, or somehow putting them on the table at the count when everyone's back is turned. I think that very unlikely. I do not think that anyone would try to steal the ballot papers, as I suggested. If they did, it does not seem to be a much further step to steal the franking machine. Therefore, the proposition appears even more ridiculous. I wonder why we carry on with the process. Have the Government given some consideration to the time taken; and the increased danger that some papers will not be franked?
As noble Lords who have attended counts will know, either because they are involved personally or because they are overlooking someone else's, there is always a small number of papers which for some mysterious reason have not been franked. I have never been able to understand why that happens.
A Noble Lord: Winchester.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, a noble Lord from a seated position has called out "Winchester". I was trying not to refer to that. But there were a considerable number there which were not franked. It has caused a problem. I do not wish to talk about that. I wish to talk about franking in general and the referendum in particular.
My recollection is that few papers are unfranked. I was always puzzled as to why they are unfranked. However, if there is a suspicion that something really naughty has happened, it is possible to count the number of votes that were scored off in the polling station and run a check. I accept that that might delay the count, but, frankly, one of these days I believe that we shall have to start using electronic means to deal with balloting. We undertake it in a pretty old fashioned way in this modern technological age. If we did so, we should not need the official mark.
As regards the referendum, I should like to hear the Minister's view on the need in Scotland to make the mark on two separate ballot papers, and whether he

1399
shares my slight concern that it may increase the danger of one or other ballot paper being missed at a busy time. I beg to move.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may draw his attention to an incident that took place in the elections to the present all-purpose councils in Scotland. In the elections to the Falkirk Council and in the Borders, there were a number of unfranked ballot papers. The defeated candidates petitioned the sheriff court. The sheriff principals in both areas ruled that those elections were null and void because of the number of unfranked ballot papers. That is only two years ago. They ruled that the elections should be held again.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has a serious point about the franking of ballot papers. We all know that if we go into polling stations at 8.30, and the close of the poll is 9 o'clock, there is usually a rush. The polling clerks are inclined to be under some pressure and fail to frank the ballot papers. Therefore we should examine this matter more closely.
I remember from my time as a parliamentary candidate that spoilt ballot papers could throw up some quite hilarious issues. When I was MP for Falkirk and Stirling Boroughs in 1974 a number of papers were spoiled by electors who wrote in referring to my previous occupation as a postman—"that postman from Fife"! The returning officer decided that in cases where the electors had indicated a specific preference for one of the candidates, namely, "that postman from Fife", those should be my votes. My majority was increased by that given number of votes.
To return to the serious point, there have been two recent cases in Scotland, one in Falkirk and one in the Borders, where the sheriff court has been petitioned on the question of unfranked ballot papers. Such cases should be much more closely examined. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, does not wish to press his amendment. However, it is a matter for discussion across the Floor of the House and a matter for much closer examination.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, this has been a useful short debate. I tend to agree with both the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford that even the early technological age has not been evidenced in the way in which we proceed with our electoral arrangements. We are almost back in the time of the quill pen.
There would be a requirement to have some safeguard against forgery at any election. The forging of ballot papers has been a point of debate and dispute historically. It is right and proper that there should be some safeguard against forgery. I have significant doubts as to whether in this day and age the mark is the appropriate method. I do not believe that this particular Bill, at this particular time, is a way to resolve the issue. However, I am sure that if there are sufficient Members of this House and the other place, and sufficient general commentators on the way in which we conduct our
1400
elections, who feel that perhaps the time has arrived for a change, they will not be slow in coming forward. At this stage, in the context of this Bill, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that understanding answer and to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, for his intervention. The matter requires investigation. It is the responsibility of another place rather than of this House. Nonetheless, the system needs to be examined to see how we can move into the electronic era. I hope the fact that there will be two ballot papers to every person will not present an added problem at busy times, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, indicated.
I suppose that the only hope for this proposal is that if, on reflection, the noble Lord's colleagues think it sensible not to retain this particular rule, they could remove it at the final stage of the Bill. There is a small chance that the noble Lord might reflect upon this. If he sees it as presenting a problem for people at the polling stations, he has an opportunity to do something about it next Tuesday. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 52, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, Amendment No. 53:
Leave out lines 469 to 471.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Rule 31, which I seek to have removed, relates to notification of the requirement of secrecy. Those of your Lordships who have been present at a count or have been polling agents will know that one makes a declaration of secrecy. I recall from the dim and distant past that the declaration of secrecy was taken so seriously at one particular election that people were even discouraged from going out to the toilet in case they relayed some information to the outside world about the progress of the count.
Nowadays, we can all see the progress of the count because the television cameras are there, let alone the radio microphones. While I do not believe I have yet seen close-ups of the piles of votes in order—although I have come pretty close to seeing that—certainly people are interviewed during the count and asked how it is going. If they are winning, they try to pretend that they are not smiling too much; if they are losing, they try to pretend that their lips are not turned down. I have experienced both, so I know exactly how it feels.
At the last election it was pretty clear to me at every count where the television cameras were present what the result would be before it was declared. It seems ridiculous to ask people to sign a declaration of secrecy and yet allow the media to ride roughshod over rules and procedures established over many years regarding not telling people outside the count the result until the ballot is over and declared. I am pleased to see a number of noble Lords nodding in assent, indicating that they do believe this to be an abuse of the system. I am interested to hear the Government's comments.
I have little doubt, given the interest of the Scottish and Welsh media, that there will be television cameras present at the counts in the referendums. There will be

1401
only two piles of votes; there will not even be the complication of, say, a four-way election. It will become pretty obvious to all of us viewing what the result in a particular county is likely to be. That would seem to be a breach of the rules. If the rules are not to be obeyed, I suggest that it is best to change them. I beg to move.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister replies, perhaps I may help him out of what I see as a difficulty in answering this amendment. These are non-political matters for a Speaker's Conference; they are not matters for the Government of the day. Therefore my strong advice to my noble friend is merely to reply that "these are matters for a Speaker's Conference" and then sit down. Then we can all go for dinner.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, these are matters for a Speaker's Conference.
Before sitting down, I shall make one other point. The difficulty with the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will instantly recognise, is that it removes the requirement for notification of the requirement of secrecy. It does not remove the requirement of secrecy itself. The last redoubt of the scoundrel in Committee and on Report is to take refuge in pointing out the defective drafting of the amendment. In this case I am happy to do so and echo the point made by my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford; namely, that these are matters for a Speaker's Conference.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I rather fear that the quality of the replies has deteriorated again. I appreciate that that is the case. However, this was an opportunity to raise one or two issues. I took the trouble of sitting in the Library and going through this amendment with the appropriate Acts of Parliament in front of me, and it occurred to me that this would be an appropriate point at which to raise this interesting issue, which I believe is exercising other Members of this House and no doubt Members of the other place, especially if they are at the receiving end of a camera thrust into their faces when perhaps they are losing and the last thing they want is to be interviewed while the count is still going on and are busy trying to work out what gracious words they may say in defeat. The candidates who are winning have no such trouble; they are happy to be interviewed. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, makes a perfectly proper point, but I hope that he and the Minister will not mind me raising the issue as something that is contained in the schedule. I believe that a Speaker's Conference or Parliament will have to return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 53, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Gray Lord Gray moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, Amendment No. 53A:
Line 488, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53A, I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 53B which is a necessary adjunct to it and which also stands in my name.
The amendments seek to address one unsatisfactory consequence of employing local government electoral rolls for a purpose for which they were not intended. The unsatisfactory consequence is the potential for multiple voting. Unfortunately, I was unable to be in the House on the second day of Committee to move an amendment that I had tabled to Clause 1 dealing with the point. I apologise to noble Lords for having been unavoidably absent. However, I note from the Official Report that the amendment attracted some attention. At col. 332 of Hansard for 3rd July, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said, as part of his answer to the amendment, that the matter would be dealt with by an Order in Council applying Section 61 of the Representation of the People legislation.
I am grateful to the Minister for the change of heart which has brought the schedule to the Bill. By introducing it, he has obligingly presented me with perhaps a better opportunity to deal with the matter now. Nonetheless, my basic reaction is that it is all very well making something an offence if those who might offend do not know that they are doing so. It would be naïve to suppose that the electorate would seek out and familiarise itself with either the subordinate legislation, which it might have been, or the complicated formula, which is essential to the schedule.
Noble Lords will see on page 16 of the Marshalled List, commencing at line 486, that the schedule imports Rule 35 and substitutes for its paragraphs (1) and (2) the forms of question that a presiding officer may put to would-be referendum voters. At line 504, paragraph (2)(b) sets out the question designed to identify a multiple voting attempt. As the schedule stands, the presiding officer does not have to ask any of the relevant questions. My amendment, Amendment No. 53A, by substituting "shall" for "may", will ensure that the relevant questions are asked. Amendment No. 53B is necessary if we make the procedure mandatory.
This is not the first time that the problem has arisen. The solution I offer is not perfect, but at least it is a fair stab at going some way towards meeting it. Multiple voting is, I suggest, almost impossible to police. Confirmation of that view can be found in the Official Report for 12th April 1978, when this House was in Committee on the Scotland Act. Enfranchisement of Peers for assembly elections under that Act must be via the local government roll. In the course of replying to amendments that I moved, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for the Government, proposed following the same course as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, outlined on 3rd July this year. But the noble and learned Lord added, at col. 640 of the Official Report for 12th April 1978:
"Thus, we cannot stop Peers voting twice but we can punish them for it".
If the noble and learned Lord had been in his place this afternoon, I should have been tempted to invite him to consider whether, on this occasion, he might have added: "and if we can catch them".
Today we are dealing with the electorate at large. Some will receive polling cards in more than one electoral area and there are postal and proxy votes to be considered. Surely we must try to ensure that people do not offend, perhaps through ignorance.
I do not know whether the replies to amendments proposed are on an upward curve or a downward curve at the moment in terms of quality and I have no idea how my two amendments will be received. However, if the Minister who is to reply has significant difficulty with my amendments or their wording, perhaps in the course of his answer he will consider giving an undertaking that a statement making the position clear will appear, perhaps on every polling card and in any informatory leaflet which may yet arrive in households. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, unfortunately my noble friend Lord Molyneaux has just left his place so he will not be able to verify my comments. As I understand it, a well-known maxim in Ulster, particularly in areas controlled by Sinn Fein, is: "Vote early and vote often". The pair of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, would help to obviate the danger of that malpractice occurring in Scotland. Therefore, I suggest that they should be supported.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Gray makes a valid point. It is all very well for legislators to say: "You should not vote more than once", but when people get two polling cards, for example, dare I suggest that they may become a little confused and think that they do have the right to vote more than once. After all, they have two polling cards in their hands. That is one of the penalties of having a local government register, but I shall not revisit that argument.
My noble friend has a valid point and he suggests a way of getting round the difficulty. He might even be prepared to accept that the second question in paragraph (2)(b) should be obligatory because that will bring to someone's attention the question: "Have you voted before?", or "Have you voted already in the referendum?". If people have done so because they appear on two registers as a result of the local government problem, they will at least know that they are, in sailing jargon, "sailing into danger". They will then be able to say: "Yes, I have", but they may also say: "But I have two polling cards. Am I not allowed to vote on each of them?". Then the presiding officer can explain. My noble friend has a good point on this.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, explained, Amendments Nos. 53A and 53B deal with the questions that the presiding officer at the polling station may or should ask voters before giving them ballot papers. At elections, presiding officers can ask voters whether they are the person mentioned in the relevant entry in the register and whether the voter has already voted, as the noble Lord explained.
1404
Amendment No. 53A would require the presiding officer at the polling station to put those questions to every voter. At elections, the presiding officer only puts the questions if he believes it necessary or if specifically asked to do so by the candidates or their agents.
Amendment No. 53B is related and requires both the statutory questions to be put rather than "one or both". We believe that it would be better to leave the use of the statutory questions to the presiding officer's discretion. To use them on every occasion would, I am afraid, slow the voting process quite unnecessarily and may well cause problems in the polling station itself. As at normal elections, those questions would be available to be used if and when required, I am not convinced of the power of the argument that has been advanced. I am afraid that I have to ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported me and thank the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for his answer. I must say that the quality of the answers due to this side of the House is on the downward curve at this moment. It is a disappointing answer. I am not certain that slowing the electoral process is an adequate reason for perhaps condoning an offence. On the other hand, I am certain that the quality of the presiding officers is such that they will do their very best.
At this hour and in these circumstances, I do not think I have much alternative but to withdraw. However, I did not hear any comment on my suggestion that people might be advised of the position via the polling card or something else. If, before I withdraw the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would like to interrupt me and comment, I should be grateful.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the whole range of issues that we have been discussing in the past few moments indicate general disquiet about the present arrangements. If at some future date there were to be a Speaker's Conference, that is clearly one of the issues which could be referred to and dealt with by such a conference.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I hope that when the Minister reads the record of the debate and thinks about what I have said as to the undertaking that he might give, he might have second thoughts before a Speaker's Conference. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 53A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, Amendment No. 54:
Line 492, leave out ("both") and insert ("more").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the House agrees, perhaps we can take Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 together. That will end the series of amendments and

1405
will, no doubt, bring a great deal of pleasure to some noble Lords. It will not bring half as much pleasure to your Lordships as it brings to me, I must say.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are on a slightly different issue, although they address the same part of the rules that my noble friend Lord Gray has just discussed. I tabled them partly because, as I have told your Lordships before, I live in the constituency of Glasgow Govan, where a certain number of questions are posed over some of the people who voted. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, drew our attention to the supposed adage about voters in Northern Ireland: "Vote early and vote often".
Suppose one intends to impersonate someone and vote in his or her stead, either because one knows that the person is not there and one is safe in doing so or simply because it has been arranged for imaginary people to be registered, their polling cards have been picked up and off one goes. Perhaps I may suggest that, even if the presiding officer asks the two questions, if one is into that kind of villainy, one will say, "Yes, I am the person registered and of course I have not voted anywhere else." So the two questions are rather weak. Therefore, if we are serious about this matter, I have suggested that we ought to give the presiding officer the power to ask a third question; namely, "May I have some verification of your identity?" I make that point very seriously, although I suspect that, having been well guided by his noble friend Lord Ewing, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will tell us that this is a matter for a Speaker's Conference.
If in fact this becomes a matter for a Speaker's Conference, I shall feel that I have done a reasonably good job for a few minutes this evening. It is a serious problem. People who vote for either imaginary people whom they have registered or other people whom they know to be out of the country and therefore not going to vote represent a much more serious problem than that addressed by franking ballot papers that we discussed a few moments ago. I do not say that many people do it but I am afraid that quite clearly it is done. Everybody who has been involved in elections has the occasional story about it, without much evidence. As I said, it has become a considerable scandal in the constituency of Glasgow Govan. I believe that this amendment would be one of the ways to get round that problem.
I should not go quite so far as my noble friend and make the question obligatory on every elector. In many polling stations, especially in rural areas, the presiding officer knows everybody who comes to vote. But in cities that is not the case at all. Therefore, I believe that if the presiding officer had the right to ask the third question, we should put up a blockade to personation which is not put up by questions (2)(a) and (2)(b).
Even if the noble Lord cannot accept my amendment, I hope that he will accept the argument that I put forward and suggest to his honourable and right honourable friends in government that, should a Speaker's Conference about electoral matters take place, we should consider this whole question. I do not say
1406
that my solution is perfect but I believe that the right of the presiding officer to ask for evidence inevitably has to come in our elections in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 seek to add a further statutory question which voters can be asked at the polling stations; namely, "May I have some verification of your identity?" I can imagine the response that is likely to be given in some of the polling stations with which I am familiar should an officer of the poll ask that question. But let us leave that matter apart; perhaps I know places which are too rough.
According to the amendment, voters will be invited to show some form of verification. As the noble Lord indicated, we do not have that feature at present in relation to elections, either parliamentary or local. I do not believe that a case can be made that it ought to be introduced specifically for a referendum. I do not think that that was the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
In terms of the amendment, if a person could not produce some form of identity, he or she would still be able to vote; the ability to vote is not dependent on being able to produce some form of identity. But I take the general thrust of the amendment. I make nit-picking points.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I ask my noble friend the Minister to forgive my interruption. I am reliably informed that, when the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, was Minister in the Scottish Office, he was regarded as a lookalike for Robert Redgrave. So, what would happen if he turned up at a polling station with a photograph of Robert Redgrave and, on being asked for some evidence of identity, produced that photograph? What is the purpose of producing evidence of identity? The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, could produce a Robert Redgrave lookalike!
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may seek to save my noble friend some embarrassment. It was not Robert Redgrave for whom he was mistaken but a gentleman by the name of Redford.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the only comment that I feel able to make is that the noble Earl's successor in office would not be mistaken for Robert Redford.
As for the general thrust of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I fall back on my now well-worked formula, thanks to my noble friend: if there were to be a Speaker's Conference, I am sure that is one of the matters that could be looked at.
8 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure whether or not that was a sympathetic answer. However, I was making a serious point in relation to questions of impersonation and the fact that in city polling stations it is relatively easy to impersonate because the chance of a presiding officer knowing individuals is remote. That is the evidence which is

1407
reputed to exist in the Glasgow Goven constituency. I say "reputed" because I only know of these matters from newspapers and do not have any knowledge myself, not having gone to the polls on polling day for reasons known to all your Lordships.
It is a serious problem and one day we shall need to consider giving that extra piece of armoury to polling station presiding officers to ensure that people are not voting for people who cannot turn up or imaginary people whom they have arranged to reside at certain addresses on 10th October who receive polling cards. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 54, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, in relation to Amendment No. 50 I wish to make a technical point. Perhaps noble Lords would be good enough to turn to the schedule at page 10 of the Second Marshalled List. I should first like to refer to paragraph (g) and then to paragraph (f). Paragraph (g) states,
"a reference to a person's entitlement as an elector to an absent vote shall be construed as a reference to a person's entitlement to vote by post on his own behalf—
fair enough—
"or to vote by proxy".
That seems to me to be a strange way of putting it. Perhaps it should be, "or to appoint somebody else to vote by proxy". I am wondering about that wording.
Paragraph (f) says,
"a reference to a person voting as an elector shall be construed as a reference to a person voting on his own behalf'.
That seems fair enough. I feel that the wording should perhaps be, "or on behalf of another person by proxy". That is my first question. It is a technical one. Will the Minister be good enough to look at that between now and Third Reading?
To save time I shall ask my second question. There is an interesting difference between the elections for the European Parliament and the elections for the Parliament at Westminster or local government elections. For the European parliamentary elections, no polling agents are appointed. That is an interesting difference. Will the referendum be similar to a national election or a European election from the point of view of polling agents? Perhaps the Minister can answer that question.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I give an undertaking to write to the noble Earl on those points.
On Question, Amendment No. 50 agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 56:
[In the Title]:
Line 5, leave out ("the establishment of').
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Sussex Downs
8.4 p.m.
Viscount Merseyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to give full support to the Sussex Downs Conservation Board in their management of the Sussex Downs area of outstanding natural beauty from April 1998.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I feel that I am uniquely placed and privileged to ask the Question. I live at Bignor, on the northern escarpment of the Downs. I was christened in Bignor Church in 1934. I expect to be buried there, as was my father and as was his father, near the Roman Villa.
The Sussex Downs area of outstanding natural beauty in which we live is 400 square miles. At its western end, where we are, it includes also the Weald up to the Surrey border and is 25 miles wide. But further east, where the River Adur cuts through it at Lancing, it is only three miles. It is only 50 miles from here. It is a rural sanctuary sandwiched between two urban developments. To the north lie London's outriders—Horsham, Crawley and Haywards Heath—and to the south lies a great ribbon of seaside towns—Bognor, Littlehampton, Worthing, Shoreham, Hove, Brighton and so on through to Eastbourne.
It was incursion from the South that first worried us. In the 1920s Peacehaven was built on top of the Downs where they plunge into the sea east of Brighton. The society of Sussex Downsmen tried to prevent further urban sprawl. Then followed various preservation plans. One idea in the 1950s was that it should become a national park. However, it was considered already too cultivated for that status: more redolent of Dartmoor or the Peak District. Instead it became one of 40 AONBs in 1965.
Sadly, that still did not provide sufficient protection. Indeed, it is reckoned that 80 per cent. of Sussex Downland has been lost to us over the past 50 years. That is why the Sussex Downs Conservation Board was formed six years ago, but as an experiment. It was a temporary measure and its remit runs out in April of next year. Happily, the Government have just given it a most welcome reprieve of a further three years, albeit with reduced funding. During those three years consultation should give rise to a permanent solution and the 64,000 dollar question is: what is that permanent solution to be?
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will, I feel sure, have read the adjourned debate in another place on 4th July moved by my honourable friend the Member for Arandale and South Downs and the reply of her honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I must confess that I was encouraged by that reply. It seems that government recognise that the conservation board has worked well and that they believe in the maxim, "If it works, don't fix it".
I hope therefore that the board will be given permanent status over the next three years. That may require primary legislation and some alteration. But not, please, alteration to a national park. National parks are

1409
expensive—£3 million per annum per park. The Sussex Downs Conservation Board is cheap—only one-third of the cost of a park. It relies on a large body of voluntary staff, including 200 rangers.
Then there may be planning difficulties. National park policy can fight local authority policy. But with the Downs conservation board, such a fight cannot take place since all 13 local authorities are represented on it. Besides, the board gives planning advice only. Planning power still rests with the local authorities. Admittedly, the board is too big. It has 36 members—12 from district councils, 12 from county councils and 12 from the Countryside Commission. My solution is to remove those 12 from the Countryside Commission and substitute direct funding from the Department of the Environment for the commission funding. We would then have a democratically elected board of 24 people funded half locally and half nationally.
I must now mention the neighbouring East Hampshire area of outstanding natural beauty and suggest, as have government, that it should join the board which should then be renamed the South Downs Conservation Board. East Hampshire has another 150 square miles of rolling Downland stretching to Winchester. It is managed by three local authorities. If each put up two members, the board numbers would climb back again to 30. So that is my solution: a permanent board, including Hampshire, funded 50–50 by local authorities and government.
There are other solutions. Last summer a seminar was held at Sussex University. Six different solutions were proposed, ranging from a return to the pre-1992 position to a full-blown national park. The former is clearly not on and the latter, to my mind, is too drastic. But whichever solution we adopt, we cannot relax. A three-year reprieve seems long but it took the present board nearly three years from the date of its original legal creation until it was up and running. We must get moving now to guarantee preservation of this part of our heritage.
As I said, I am fortunate. I can just remember my uncle taking me to the top of Bignor Hill before the war and saying that on a clear day you could see the Isle of Wight. Nearly 60 years later, we have the same view, with Stane Street stretching away to Chichester. But to our east, others are less fortunate. There the AONB is narrower and the demands of expansion wider: not just demand for buildings, but demand for golf courses, football grounds and other recreational facilities which would destroy the fauna, the flora and the very essence of the South Downs.
Today, 32 million visitors enjoy this conservation area in happy harmony. I ask the Government to ensure that they continue so to do for many years to come.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, has performed a valuable service in bringing this Question before your Lordships' House. Both the residents and visitors to Sussex will be extremely grateful to him. Like, I suspect, many other noble Lords who are to speak, I have to declare an interest. My
1410
house—or rather my cottage—is in Beddingham in East Sussex downland. I am also a member of the A.27 action group, which seeks to promote environmentally acceptable road developments in the area. So I suppose I could be categorised as a NIMBY (not in my back yard) but I hope to show that that is not my main concern.
I benefit not only from living in a beautiful, spacious landscape but also because the classification AONB and, with that, the eagle eye of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board ensure that any development that is allowed is in keeping with the environment so that its character is preserved; and preserved not merely for the benefit of those who, like myself, are lucky enough to live there but for those who make the 32 million visits per annum to the South Downs that the conservation board has calculated.
Close to my cottage is a public footpath, maintained incidentally by the conservation board. Sometimes quite large groups of people—walkers or joggers—pass by. We had a local marathon 10 days ago. Occasionally their conversation, as they walk along, disturbs the rural peace. But that is a small price to pay for the privilege of living there.
Noble Lords will remember that Voltaire once wrote to a certain Abbé le Riche, "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write it". It is fairly unlikely that I would give my life for walkers or joggers, but by supporting the South Downs Conservation Board and encouraging Her Majesty's Government to do so a little more generously in future than perhaps they have for the two years after 1998, I may be contributing to the future enjoyment by walkers and joggers of the South Downs, which I consider to be one of the lungs of London.
More disturbing than those who jog by are those who motor by—in my case one-third of a mile away along the A.27, the trunk road that passes through the South Downs. The white sound of tyres speeding over the road surface reaches noise pollution levels when the wind blows from the north. In the 18th report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution there is a map showing how between 1960 and 1992 wide streets of traffic noise, appropriately coloured white, have, along major roads, cut into and almost halved the tranquil areas of south east England. That is the current situation without any further development.
Trunk roads are the responsibility of the Department of Transport but the Sussex Downs Conservation Board has an important advisory role. The plan for upgrading the A.27 to near motorway standard from Folkestone to Honiton has been shelved. However, as I have discussed with my noble friend Lady Hayman, there is a particular scheme—the Weald and Downland DBFO, a privately-financed scheme—which, while including a much-needed bypass for Polegate, near Eastbourne, also proposes a monster, environmentally intrusive, split level roundabout with a through route for a much enlarged A.27 pointing directly into unspoilt countryside in the area of outstanding natural beauty. I should like to take this opportunity to express the alarm which this

1411
scheme is causing to a number of local and national organisations, including the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I shall do this in advance of a visit by the South Downs Conservation Board. There are simple, much cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternatives which would still permit the much-needed Polegate bypass to be built.
Finally, while I do not expect my noble friend Lady Farrington to pre-empt the decision, which is imminent, on this and the other DBFO schemes, I hope she will draw these remarks to the attention of her noble friend Lady Hayman, who is the Minister concerned.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Mersey on initiating this debate and I support the purpose of his Question wholeheartedly. In doing so, I, too, should declare a non-financial but highly involved interest in the subject, being a resident of the area for over 16 years.
The Sussex Downs is to me, and to many other people, the most wonderful part of England. It is so peaceful and beautiful to walk there at any time of the day and in any season of the year. I feel especially privileged to live in such a marvellous part of the country. I do not want anything to spoil it, ever.
This is not NIMBYism but a statement that embodies my strongly-held belief that the unique character of the Sussex Downs, giving, as my noble friend Lord Mersey said, some 400 square miles of rolling countryside offering peace and tranquillity just 60 miles or so from the capital city of this country, must be preserved.
The Sussex Downs Conservation Board has done a commendable job in achieving just that—preserving it. This fact, indeed, has been acknowledged by the Countryside Commission and by the Government. In a sense this debate is superfluous in asking the Government whether they intend to give full support to the Sussex Downs Conservation Board when the Government have already, in another place, in the form of words from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment in an adjournment debate on 4th July given that support to the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. I quote:
"the Government are very appreciative of the efforts of the Sussex Downs conservation board in conserving the downs over the past five years. I hope the House will agree that the conservation board is a success story—and the Government intend to help to make it even more successful in the future".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/97; col. 594.)
But an endorsement from this House will not go amiss and will reinforce all that has already been said.
It is imperative that the board should continue to be both supported and encouraged. Encouragement is not in short supply at all; funds for the support of the board may be; and that is the subject that concerns me. The Countryside Commission has supported the board most handsomely in the past, allocating about a third of its total funds to the area. However, this contribution is going to be reduced over the next three years, leaving a gap to be filled from other sources. The local authorities have also supported the board, encouraged by the
1412
Government, and the Countryside Commission wishes to see full participation of all local authorities in the geographical area in the work of the board.
No one in this House is unaware of the strained financial resources of local authorities; so much so that it really is living in "Cloud-cuckoo-land" to expect the local authorities to increase their funding to make up the shortfall resulting from the Countryside Commission's reduced contribution. The Countryside Commission expects the board to increase income from other sources.
I have worked very hard over the past seven years or so trying to raise money "from other sources" for the arts and for charities. It is not easy. In fact I believe it is now even more difficult because would-be donors are inclined to think that they have been relieved of their responsibility since the introduction of the National Lottery.
Perhaps we can approach the National Lottery: it is certainly worth a try. But with the recent announcement that the Department of National Heritage is now to be renamed the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I fear that applications to the National Lottery, for a truly heritage project for which that department has responsibility might not be favourably regarded. I ask the Minister to allay my fears on that point and to give encouragement to the Sussex Downs Conservation Board to make such an application, supported by yet a further endorsement from the Government.
As a final point I would also like to ask the Minister if she can elaborate on the statement of her honourable friend in another place to the effect that consultation will begin later this year on,
"the best way forward for managing the downs in the medium and longer term".
The specific questions are these: What is the time-scale for such consultation—for example, how long is it going to take? What other new assumptions are likely to be stated as a "given" in addition to the inclusion of Hampshire in the process?
8.21 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the noble Viscount on raising this important question. I believe that I agree with everything that he said. My only qualification for adding anything is that I, too, like so many of your Lordships, live more or less within the shadow of the South Downs, but perhaps rather less so than some noble Lords who are to speak later. For many years I have been a member of the Sussex Downsmen. Indeed I am now honoured to be their president.
I shall say only a very few words because I have almost lost my voice, which may perhaps be regarded as a good thing in a judge. But at least I shall be brief. A few months ago I joined with seven or eight others, including the chairman of the National Trust and the president of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, in writing a letter to The Times calling on the then Government to do what is necessary to protect the great beauty of the South Downs. I cannot remember

1413
what word we used, whether we wrote "great beauty", "unique beauty", or "incomparable beauty". But we all agreed that it is one or other of those things.
Many noble Lords who have already spoken or who are to speak, will be as familiar as I am—perhaps more familiar—with the South Downs. The point that we tried to make in the letter is that the South Downs are not just a great joy for all of us locals, but their future is a matter of national concern, and that is the point I wish to make tonight.
That brings me to the conservation board. It has only existed for a mere five years and during that time it has not spent a great deal of public money—at least not by the standards that we are now used to. But I can say that every single penny that has been spent has been money well spent. If it does not sound too quaint to say so, on behalf of the Sussex Downsmen I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and also my friend—if I may so call him—the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for all that they have done on behalf of the South Downs over the past five years.
To my mind it would be the greatest pity if what they have achieved were now to be thrown away owing to a lack of funds. The work of the board must be continued on a permanent basis either in its present form or in some rather similar form with marginally, but not greatly, increased powers. Above all, it must be made financially secure for the future. Having said that, I shall leave what remains to be said to those who follow.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I should declare an interest as the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I am the first speaker in my noble friend's debate not to live in the South Downs. However, when I was a child my grandparents lived at Arundel, and before, during and after the war I spent early formative years enjoying the Sussex Downs. I say at once that it is precisely the sort of area which CPRE in its first 70 years has been fighting to protect.
The noble Lord mentioned Peacehaven. I recollected that many years ago I became lost and found myself in Peacehaven. It was that experience which first stimulated me to take up the lance to protect rural England.
The plea that I wish to make is an unashamed one; that the body which must protect the South Downs must be adequate for the purpose. It has been pointed out that it was originally proposed by the Hobhouse Committee in 1947 that this area should be a national park. It was not made a national park, but it was made an area of outstanding natural beauty. I fear that that AONB is now rather a second rank status compared to being a national park. Indeed, much damage over the period since 1947 has been done by the ploughing up of large parts of the Downs.
Part of the Downs became an environmentally sensitive area in 1987. That is not enough although it is quite expensive. The cost is over £1 million a year compared to a budget for the South Downs as they are now of £1.3 million. The ESA is an expensive and not
1414
wholly effectual route to achieve the objective that we want. In 1992 we had the creation of the South Downs Conservation Board under the enlightened chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who I believe is shortly to be succeeded by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. Indeed, the place from which he takes his title is one that I have been fortunate enough to visit a number of times and to get to know the Downs even better.
But that board is financed by the Countryside Commission. For 12 years I was a member of that body. I know that it is not a satisfactory system for the Countryside Commission to be responsible for ad hoc temporary financing. The financing which is envisaged for the present is only a further three years from April next year.
I believe that there are two main reasons why the Downs needs national parks status, but that does not necessarily mean that they should become a national park. The first main reason is planning because one cannot trust local authorities on their own not to see land close to them and within their grasp as land to be developed. Secondly, it is necessary to secure proper funding with a 75 per cent. central government contribution.
I know that there are doubts about national park status for the South Downs. We have been round this track before with the Broads. There was much opposition to the need to replace the ad hoc body which was meant to look after them with the new Broads authority which was brought into effect by the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988. As a countryside commissioner I was required to talk to angry groups of farmers, boatmen and others who thought that the arrival of such a body would take away their freedoms and their admiral's flag on the Broads. (I know that that does not apply to the Downs). The Broads Authority has worked extremely well.
We now have the Environment Act 1995 which could be used to strengthen the protection of the South Downs. It could create a new body which could have the existing name: it would not have to be called a national park. It could have the same name as the South Downs Conservation Board and it is hoped that it could be under the chairmanship of my noble friend. Introducing that would be a relatively simple matter—not, as I understand it, requiring primary legislation. In the first instance, the Countryside Commission would be required to draw up a plan. There would then be consultation and, if agreed, it would be for the Secretary of State to designate the agreed area as such. My final appeal to the Government is that in this crucial and beautiful area the time has come to think of a permanent, rather than a temporary, solution.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, on raising this subject in the wake of the short debate in another place earlier this month. Unlike most of those speaking this evening, I do not live in Sussex; nor do I hold any position on the organisations or quangos concerned about the welfare of the Downs. But I have written a Guide to the South

1415
Downs Way, and during the year I spent compiling it the topography and ecology of the South Downs, as well as their history and literature, were never far from my mind. I have trudged all over them and ridden the length of them on horseback. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has been disturbed by the conversation of my fellow walkers; he is fortunate not to have been of a previous generation when it was customary for ramblers to sing choruses as they walked. I suppose that I am speaking from the perspective of the 16 million or so people from beyond Sussex who visit the Sussex Downs each year.
When my book was first published in 1984 the South Downs Way was only in Sussex, but I extended my coverage to Winchester, recognising that the South Downs transcend administrative divisions, in contrast to the opinion of Hilaire Belloc who scornfully referred to the Hampshire border,
"beyond which there is nothing".
Today I detect a general acceptance that the landscape that concerns us is that which falls in Hampshire as well as in West and East Sussex—in effect, the two adjacent areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Another point of general agreement is that the experimental Sussex Downs Conservation Board has done a good job. As an amateur in the matter, I particularly commend the voluntary ranger service. But it has to be seen as a temporary arrangement, and the Government are very sensibly setting up a consultative process to establish the best permanent solution for the future administration of the South Downs.
The consultation paper which was produced by the board earlier last year and which was, I believe, discussed in Sussex University, defines a number of options. These range from a reversion to the system before 1992 to an advancement towards a national park. The central issue is as to where the strategic planning authority lies. At present, the conservation board is merely an influential committee. I wish to add my voice to those who support the concept of a statutory authority, as did the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
The extreme pressures on the South Downs are likely to intensify as never before now that the economy is roaring ahead, and big tests are yet to come, such as the plans for the sports complex in Waterhall Valley. The chronic fragility of the landscape was dramatically demonstrated in the recent exploitations of the flax tax loophole—one of them, incidentally, on the Down from which the incoming chairman of the board takes his territorial designation—Mount Harry—and partly in a site of special scientific interest. Within those parts of the downs designated as environmentally sensitive areas, the take-up by farmers of compensation schemes for grassland has been uninspiring.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that a higher price must be paid for the preservation of the downland, and that it will have to come from government funding. The large sums involved, together with the desirability of incorporating the East Hampshire Downs, predicate the establishment of something equivalent to a national park, even if that particular designation is to be avoided.
1416
The co-operation of local authorities should surely be attainable within the provisions of the recent Environment Act. That of the landowners is also essential, especially because, without it, we are faced with the danger of extensive scrub reversion. I can think of no part of upland or lowland England where scrub reversion would be more deplorable than on the South Downs, whose appeal derives from their bare and sensuous lines, what W. H. Hudson memorably described as,
"the solemn slope of mighty limbs asleep",
the result of centuries of shaving by sheep and plough. Clothed in a garment of wood and leaf, they would be scarcely distinctive or discernible.
What we must hope for is that they will be protected under a regime altogether more strict than that for ordinary AONBs, a strictness that must apply to visitors as well as residents, so as to recreate a sense of space and solitude such as is so sadly lacking elsewhere in south-east England today.
8.35 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as vice-president of the Council for National Parks and of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. There is great concern among the 43 environment and amenity organisations that make up the Council for National Parks that the South Downs should deservedly be given the status equivalent to that of a national park. During the last week I was privileged to fly over the South Downs with the Hampshire police, so the Downs are fresh in my mind.
The Sussex Downs Conservation Board has been successful in generating a consensus that something needs to be done to secure the future management of the South Downs. However, the South Downs deserve a more unified, Downs-focused approach to planning, to countryside and recreation management, and to landscape enhancement than the board has been able to provide. The board has lacked essential powers and the benefits that a long-term approach can bring.
Therefore, I warmly welcome the Government's announcement of a consultation later this year on the best way forward for managing the Downs in the medium and long term. I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for an assurance that the consultation on the South Downs will genuinely explore all the options for the Downs, including that of awarding them national park status. I know that there is tremendous local support for a body with national park status to take over the management of the South Downs, building on the start made by the Sussex Downs Conservation Board.
The board was charged with reviewing the possibility of national park status for the Downs annually. Unfortunately, this has not happened and perhaps the board is not best placed to undertake such a review. I would also ask for an indication from the Government as to whether the consultation on the future of the Downs will be undertaken by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in consultation with the Countryside Commission, as happened with the

1417
New Forest consultation on national park status in 1992. If the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were to undertake the consultation, this would avoid the consultation on the future of the South Downs being confused or subsumed by the Countryside Commission's forthcoming consultation on areas of outstanding natural beauty in general.
I understand that the Government are keen to have a permanent solution for the management of the South Downs in place before the end of the interim funding to the Sussex Downs Conservation Board; I share the concern expressed by the Minister for the Environment. I therefore hope that the Government will be able to tell us when the consultation on the future management of the Downs will start and finish.
I am delighted by the Government's commitment to designate more areas of countryside with national park status. I was involved in the national park-related clauses of the Environment Act 1995 and suggest that they have opened up some exciting possibilities for tailoring any new national park body to the special requirements of its area. For example, there is now some flexibility for tailoring planning arrangements to the needs of the area and also some flexibility as to whether the term "national park" needs to be used in the name of any new body. I hope that the Government will explore these options with regard to the South Downs.
8.39 p.m.
Viscount Hampden: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount for introducing this important debate. I am totally opposed to the request of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for national park status, but perhaps he would expect that. I also declare an interest. My family has owned quite large tracts of the South Downs for many generations. I believe that Mount Caburn, an ancient hill fort behind Lewes, has been in my family since the 13th century. In the middle of the 17th century we moved southwards and acquired the parish of Beddingham where the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has his cottage. It does not belong to me any more. Thanks to a generous Act of Parliament, my great-great grandfather was voted an annuity of £4,000 for his 12 years as Speaker. The family was then able to buy further large tracts of the South Downs at £25 per acre in the 1890s.
Some of the beauty of the South Downs is pure nature and some is man made. I am afraid that my family has been responsible for some of the man made features around Lewes. One hundred and fifty years ago we went into the lime works business and clawed great chunks of chalk out of the Downs, dug clay from the marshland and built a tramway and a mining village. If I suggested today that I did any of those things everybody would come down on my head and say "No!". One hundred and fifty years later a number of these features are of great beauty. The disused clayworks is now a lake and is a sanctuary for wildfowl, owl, harriers etc. The chalkpit is a rather dramatic scar in Caburn and a place for picnics. I mention this because I believe that all planning must be for the long term and not just the short term.
1418
I refer to Mount Caburn to give your Lordships some idea of the management problems. It is an ancient monument. Members of the Institute of Archaeology are to visit it next week to do a dig. English Nature has claimed it as a nature reserve. It is home to a great many burnt-tipped orchids and other species. It is also a beauty spot for walking. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has walked there with his team when writing his book. Arrangements must be made with the local authority to provide footpaths. When the wind is in a certain direction it is the only place in the south east of England where para-gliders can operate. I must have another arrangement with them for access to car parking. It is quite a trial although a great joy. I believe it is very important that a conservation trust like that presided over by my noble friend Lord Nathan can operate in the local environment with people who understand the problems.
I should like to end by referring to one matter touched upon by my noble friend Lord Gladwyn. He referred to scrubbing. This is a very important matter. It takes one back to agriculture. Farming on the South Downs is not profitable. One can just about make a living out of it—at least that is what one's tenants say. In the 1930s my family was unable to let the hill farms because sheep farming was so unattractive. This led to all of the problems referred to by my noble friend: scrubbing, ranching and the disappearance of partridges and other songbirds. It is enormously important that we take into account the agricultural interest as well as all the other interests.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I should like to declare two interests in this interesting debate on the Question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. First, as some noble Lords have already mentioned, I have the great honour to have been elected by the South Downs Conservation Board to succeed the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, as chairman in due course. I, too, should like to pay tribute to the tremendous work of the noble Lord as chairman. He has put a huge amount of time into it. He has put in not only time but diplomacy and judgment. It is as a result of so much of his work that the board has been the success that it has.
My other interest is that Mount Harry is the territorial tag that is now attached to my name. It is one of the Sussex Downs that this evening we are talking about conserving. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, that I have not been at Mount Harry for nearly as long as he has been at Glynde. It was not because of any flax tax that I chose this name. I remind the House that it was on Mount Harry on 14th May 1264 that Simon de Montfort beat Henry III at the Battle of Lewes. In January of the following year he summoned not just churchmen and lay barons but two representatives of each borough to form what was in effect the first truly democratic parliament in England. That is perhaps to be celebrated more in the other place than in your Lordships' House.
I should like to reply briefly to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and my noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Addison on the question of

1419
national park status for the Sussex Downs. I realise that this will be extensively debated in the months and years ahead. There is nothing wrong with that at all. However, having lived at Mount Harry for 30 years and been a Member of Parliament for Mid-Sussex for 23 of them, I see no sign whatever in Sussex of great support for national park status. I believe that your Lordships should bear in mind three factors. First, farmers and landowners are very much against it. They believe that they would lose a good deal of control over the use of their land. Secondly, the local authorities are against it. National parks are normally planning authorities. Therefore, local authorities will lose development control over land that is of questionable value in an area that is certainly subject to as much pressure as the Sussex Downs.
Within the conservation board there is a planning committee that carries out co-operative work between the board, the Countryside Commission and the local authorities. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, agrees that to date that has worked extremely effectively. Arguably, it is at least better than the national park system. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Sussex Downs are not wild wilderness country like most national parks; rather, they are rolling, gentle farm landscape surrounded by towns. Ten million people live within one hour's drive of the Downs. The beauty of the Downs depends not so much on the conservation board improving rights of way and visitor facilities as the care with which farmers and landowners have looked after and tended the land, often for many generations. It is very important that in considering the future of the Downs in the years ahead one works with the grain of what is reasonably received in Sussex rather than look at exemplars in other parts of the country which frankly may not be very suitable.
I should like to put two questions to the noble Baroness who is to reply. These matters were raised by her colleague in the other place in the debate on 4th July. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary said she understood that financing had been agreed between local authorities, the Countryside Commission and the board for three years ahead. This is simply not so. The Countryside Commission has made its proposals. They mean a reduction of about 50 per cent. over the three years in the money that has been received from the Countryside Commission in the past three years. One needs a clear view as to what the Government expect from the board in the years ahead at a time when the amount of money available from both the Countryside Commission and local authorities is likely to be severely reduced.
In the other place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary also gave the impression that measures had been taken to deal with the flax problem. Last Sunday I walked past that part of Mount Harry where flax was growing. The crop is coming along very nicely. The blue flowers are now on top of the plants. I should like to know the Government's precise proposals to deal with the flax tax or subsidy in the future. This is a matter of very great concern in many areas of the Downs.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for introducing this wide-ranging debate. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has already spoken is to succeed me as chairman of the board.
I declare two interests. First, I have lived in my present house in the AONB for some 45 years. Both my wife and I have lived on the margin of the AONB throughout our lives. I also declare an interest as chairman of the board effectively since it started in 1992. I believe that it has been a success. I say that because of some of the kind remarks that have been made. I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have made such remarks.
The Countryside Commission instructed consultants Green Balance to report to it—the consultants reported in September of last year—on the achievements and effectiveness of the board. In its report it said as to countryside management:
"The Board has been remarkably good value for money achieving perhaps twice as many projects (of a greater size on average) as would have been expected".
As to town and country planning, it says:
"It is doubtful whether the Countryside Commission could have spent money in any other way to influence the planning of the AONB to the same extent, so we conclude that the Board has provided value for money".
I hope therefore that the Minister in her reply will give an unequivocal, positive answer to the Question.
The idea of the board originated with the two counties, East and West Sussex, which, together with the eleven district councils falling within the AONB and the Countryside Commission, established the board by agreement between them that it should continue for an experimental period of six years from 1st April 1992 to 31st March 1998. The Department of the Environment gave it a fair wind. The counties between them undertook for the six years to provide funding of £600,000 per annum for that period to be matched by the Countryside Commission; that is, a 50/50 division.
AONBs are nationally designated, being of national and not only local importance. This is the context of the Countryside Commission's responsibilities. In 1990 the Smart Anderson Report was published relating to AONBs and the need to ensure that they were not merely second class national parks. The constitution of the board in 1992 was in part prompted as an experiment of national importance to test whether this combination of local and national membership, accountability and support would demonstrate a successful way forward.
In view of the comment that has been made, I should mention that the board has considered whether it should constitute itself, or arrange that it should be a national park. It decided against that, but the matter was carefully considered at the conference at Sussex University to which reference has been made.
The idea of funding for an interim period from April 1998 was to provide time for consultation and decision as to the permanent arrangements for

1421
administration of the AONB The funding during this period must be adequate to keep the board in being and effective to carry out its core functions—countryside management and planning—pending the permanent arrangements coming into effect. The cut to just over 50 per cent. of previous support by the Countryside Commission presents the board with serious problems with which we are grappling. We can only carry on if the local authorities continue or increase their funding. I believe their enthusiasm is such that they will, even in these very difficult times for them. I hope that I am right. It will be essential that the Countryside Commission is flexible as to the rate of drawing down its funds (as it has indicated it will be) and as to the use to which its funding is put. The work programme for coming years earlier discussed with it will clearly require modification. The board will, as the Countryside Commission itself acknowledges, have to engage in securing substantial funds from elsewhere (itself involving time, effort and expenditure) to undertake the tasks which have over the past years given it its reputation as a trail blazer. By deferring new initiatives planned for 1998 and years following they may be funded by new money secured by our efforts, but this will take time, perhaps a couple of years or more.
In the meantime, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place said that extensive consultations would take place as to the permanent future of administration of the AONB. Can the Minister give any indication of when and how the consultation will take place? I and, I am sure, my colleagues would like to take an active and constructive part in those consultations. We have recently heard much of "fat cats". The reduction in funding results, if I may be forgiven the personal paradox, in our being slim cats on a starvation diet.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, following that amusing speech, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mersey for introducing this debate. I must declare an interest in that for the past 20 years I have been president of the Sussex area of the Ramblers' Association. So I shall concentrate on discussing rights of way.
In the same vein, time permitting, I am a serious walker and, like many others, enjoy walking the paths in the splendid landscape of the South Downs. Effective management of rights of way is a priority for the now unified Countryside Management Service, given the large number of visitors to the area. As has been said, they number a staggering 32 million a year. Incidentally, that is more than to any national park.
The area is well managed. As the board has pointed out, it provides not just access, but spreads the pressure and reduces the conflicts between conservation and recreation. The board has made tremendous strides in survey and maintenance, upgrading rights of way. Unlike most other areas of the countryside, it expects to come close to achieving the Countryside Commission's objective of ensuring that all rights of way are unobstructed,
1422
well-maintained and accessible by 2000. Keeping them in that condition under heavy usage is an ongoing task.
That does not come cheaply. The board spends £100,000 a year on that activity alone. The use of the South Downs paths is heavily on the increase. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I become anecdotal. Just a week ago last Sunday, I took part in an annual event sponsored by the Long Distance Walkers Association; 1,150 people took part in three events of eight, 15 and 27 miles. I chose the latter. I was out walking roughly between 8.30 a.m. to 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I must have been one of the vulgar people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred. He would have seen me walking bare-chested and in shorts. I hope that I was not one of those awful people who made ribald remarks over his garden fence. Next year I shall take great care and be silent.
Whereas in the past on that particular walk one would have seen a few other people walking on some of the supposedly lesser-used paths, this time, happily, there were many people around. That was encouraging. One felt that the message had got through, but the paths have to be managed all the more.
Again, and rather more worrying, on the way home I drove past Ditchling Beacon car park, owned by the National Trust, which is just outside the conurbation of Brighton. There were cars littered all over the roads because the car park was full. There one saw different types of people pursuing their leisure activities. They have just as much right as walkers such as myself. Those people want to stop to read their books and perhaps take a gentle stroll, with or without dogs, along the South Downs Way. Why not? Everyone has to be catered for. One hopes that some people may be induced to patronise less popular sites to take the weight off places like Ditchling Beacon. Again that type of activity has to be managed.
Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, related to clearing the scrub and all that sort of thing. That is done by the conservation board, but amateur groups must be encouraged. One to which I pay tribute is the Monday Club at Hassocks where those newly retired people who do not quite know what has hit them, before they come to the stage of not knowing how they found the time to go to work, are enjoying themselves going out together on a Monday to clear scrub, mend stiles or put down planks on muddy spots. I hope that other amateur groups may be encouraged to take part in such activities.
One is concerned that the reduction in funding by the Countryside Commission, particularly when it is tied to future projects, may lead to cuts in that and other essential core activities of the board. I am concerned too that uncertainties about the immediate and long-term future may lead to the loss of key members of the dedicated team of officers and staff that the board has built up over the years. I, like others, therefore very much welcome the statement made in another place by the Under-Secretary of State

1423
for the Environment, that the Government intend to initiate a consultation process on the best way forward for managing the Downs in the medium and longer term. I have no preconceived ideas as to what is the best way forward in organisational terms. But we are all looking forward to the noble Baroness's reply to the Question this evening. I hope that it will help to reduce the unease which is felt widely by informing your Lordships of the timing and procedure of the promised consultation.
9 p.m.
Viscount Gage: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for the debate. I agree with those noble Lords and, in another place, with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, all of whom have praised the excellent work of the South Downs Conservation Board over the past six years.
Like other noble Lords, I declare two interests. The first is contemporary. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I am a member of the A.27 Action Group. I agree with everything that he said. I have an historical interest. Although I cannot compete with the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, my family has farmed in East Sussex for over 500 years on the chalk farmland for which the area covered by the board is so well known. I have first-hand knowledge of the enjoyment that many residents and thousands of visitors gain from walking the South Downs Way as well as the complex network of maintained foot paths and bridlepaths in this unique countryside. The degree of respect shown by these people to the landscape, which is unspoilt and yet sufficiently close to London and other large towns to be accessible, has been achieved without the imposition of notices or signs in a low-key manner which enhances the enjoyment of visitor and resident alike. That is very much to the credit of the board.
The Downs are, and have been, under threat from a combination of over-exploitation for leisure pursuits, urban development and inappropriate farming practices. In my opinion, in recent years, these dangers have been kept under a reasonable and viable level of control by the board.
On the subject of planning, I have recently had first hand experience of the vigilance of the board in its policy of monitoring planning applications and the efficacy of its powers of veto. I can only assume that others are subject to the same rigorous and thorough screening process. My late father, once the father of this House, did a great deal singlehandedly to restrict building development on the Downs between the wars. I am sure that he would be delighted with this continued expression of his philosophy.
The Government have instituted a consultation process on the best way forward for managing the Downs in both the medium and longer term, and that consultation will begin later in the year. One of the options put forward is that the area should be made into a national park.
1424
In 1949 when the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was passed, the South Downs were excluded. The need for increased domestic food production and improved agricultural methods was imperative. It was discovered that the Downlands were both fertile and productive and accordingly over 50 per cent. of the area was put under the plough. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said, unlike many national parks the South Downs does not contain "wilderness" but is a gently farmed landscape which has been maintained with care by generations of farmers and landowners. Although the agricultural landscape of the South Downs is changing and greater emphasis is being put on pasture rather than arable, partly as a result of pressure from the EU, agricultural farming remains very much a vital and successful element in the local economy of the area. The board has been responsible for pursuing a policy which balances the need for conservation and sensitive agricultural use and has gained the confidence of farmers and landowners as well as visitors who come to enjoy the beauty of the landscape.
The board has an exemplary record in managing the area and it is in that context that I can make the point that it is metaphorically a Rolls Royce in terms of its administrative success. It needs funding, not fixing. The administration of a new national park would be more expensive than funding the existing board and would rely on already overstretched central government resources. The input of the 11 regional authorities concerned would be removed and the danger of over-exploitation for tourism rather than the needs of the local community would arise. It could invite the danger of bureaucratic managers unfamiliar with the region who might introduce a surfeit of unnecessary signs and huts which would detract from the timeless beauty of our South Downs.
The South Downs Conservation Board has been universally supported and its policies have proved efficacious at both a national and local level. The time has come to provide the board with secure long-term funding from national sources to enable it to continue its excellent work in maintaining the unique identity of the South Downs.
When the Government undertake their new consultation process I am hopeful that the conclusion will be that it is desirable to maintain and support the existing board and possibly also to enlarge its field of influence to include the Hampshire Downs under its jurisdiction.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords this has been a most interesting debate and we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for initiating it. It has been particularly interesting to hear from the once and future chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. I am particularly happy to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, speaking on behalf of that splendid body the Sussex Downsmen.

1425
Like so many noble Lords, I must declare an interest. I live about 10 miles from the Downs in West Sussex. I walk there and draw refreshment from the Downs. It is a landscape of great integrity which has been preserved over the years with some difficulty. It has, of course, changed. Your Lordships will recall the famous Belloc poem:
"The great hills of the south country
They stand along the sea
And it is there walking in the high woods
That I would wish to be".
There are precious few high woods now. We all think of those wonderful beached whales, the Downs, with not many woods on top. So it is not a static landscape. It has changed and bears the influence of humanity on it and, as has been said, in many ways that has been to its benefit over the centuries.
The Downs are small in scale. When we talk about them, often foreigners are not ready to register how tiny they are. However, they appear large in the imagination. My wife, who is listening to the debate, grew up in the Downs near Goodwood. Such is the grip of that landscape on her imagination that she is notorious to her family for looking at mountains and landscapes ranging from the Dolomites to the Blue Mountains near Sydney and saying, "Just like the Downs!". They have such a grip on our imagination, which is why the debate is important.
As regards money, which has rightly preoccupied us tonight, we must recognise that there will be great pressure on the budgets of local authorities. The motivation exists and I am one of those who hope that East Hampshire will come within the remit of an expanded board. All the authorities, whether in Sussex or Hampshire, will continue to feel pressure. Understandably, the Countryside Commission feels great pressure as a result of the large share of its resources which the board has occupied.
The Question being asked is proper, but I am with those in the debate who have asked whether it is essential to go down the national park route. To put the question crudely to the Minister: could not the board have the money without the structure and status? That is not altogether a facetious point. It has been notable in the debate that most noble Lords who are associated with national organisations have seen a national solution. However, one of the great strengths of the board is that it came from the grassroots upwards; that it belongs to the locality, to Sussex, in a real way.
I hope that in looking at solutions in the process of the consultation, which has been properly offered, we can be flexible and recognise, first, that this is a special place. Secondly, we must build on the success of the conservation board rather than demolishing it and starting again. Thirdly, we must build on local support, which is the key to the board, and we must remember the principle that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Finally, can we not find a bespoke solution rather than one that is off the peg?
9.10 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, in welcoming the interesting debate raised by my noble friend Lord Mersey, I must stress that as a good Scot I do not have an interest to declare. Unlike many noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, I do not live in the area. I do not have the correct territorial tag, unlike my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I have not run bare chested along the Sussex Downs, unlike my noble friend Lord Teviot. For a moment I thought that I had a friend in the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, until he admitted that although he has not lived there he has written a book about the Sussex Downs. Perhaps I am unique in the debate but the Minister may trump me.
I pay tribute to what has been achieved by the Sussex Downs Conservation Board under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. He was a famous chairman in this House and his reputation as chairman of the conservation board has reached my ears in far off places.
I give a guarded welcome to the Government's announcement that roll-over financing will continue. However, I echo the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and others. If the board is such a success story, which the Government admit, why are they cutting the funding and therefore jeopardising that success?
The board has been a great success. It has achieved its objectives; it has delivered countryside management; and it has had a considerable influence on town and country planning in an acceptable way. Furthermore, it has had an ability to work with local communities and local interests, deploying persuasion, building partnership and co-operation. As was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, it has produced a style of conservation that understands local problems. It has worked with the grain—a good expression used by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry.
The mechanism has been established voluntarily. The board has not sought statutory planning powers, but it has delivered on a modest budget. I hope that the Government will be prepared to retain it and to maintain it properly. Furthermore, I hope that they will be prepared to seek such solutions in other areas. As was said compellingly by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, this is a tailor-made solution that has been built from the grassroots up. It has been built on the circumstances and the agenda that have been recognised in the area. It has been built on partnership and not on prescription. Therefore, I, too, would welcome the Minister's assurance that such a solution should be the first priority in sorting out countryside management. We should not resort to more Draconian prescriptions unless the voluntary, tailor-made, grassroots approach has obviously failed.
The success with which the board has delivered its agenda as regards value for money is outstanding. It is vital that the lessons learnt are adopted by other bodies. Nevertheless visitor management can account for a considerable portion of resources. Building

1427
co-operation and consensus and seeking agreement can also generate costs. Those are less in the long run than in the case of a prescriptive solution, but nevertheless it takes time and it requires input to gather people together and to establish common solutions.
We all know that resources are not unlimited; they are tightly constrained. I have some sympathy with the Minister and with the Government in that respect in that financing solutions to the problems of the countryside is not an easy matter. The problems and challenges will inevitably increase. As the years go by, there will be a greater need for countryside management, not less. There will be greater costs which will have to be met, not fewer. There will be more people, more houses and more areas which can be described—as did my noble friend Lord Mersey in relation to the Downs—as rural sanctuaries between urban surrounds.
I hope that the Government will consider not only the problems and solutions relating to the South Downs, but also will consider strategically the kind of funding mechanisms that may be needed in the next five to 10 years. As regards funding countryside solutions, the public sector is probably being squeezed to the hilt in terms of what the taxpayer and central government and local taxpayers and local authorities can fund. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain, referred to that famous label, "income from other sources" which is always mentioned with great optimism and hope. However, that income has been well exploited and is exhausted. Private sector companies are becoming more involved in the countryside. In Scotland, for instance, a major television company has just become involved in rambling and rights of way. Non-government resources are stretched but they will also seek to deliver as much as they can in this respect. There are one-off sources of funding such as the lottery and some European sources of funds.
I hope that the Government recognise that the issues that arise in connection with the South Downs will have to be addressed in many other areas of the United Kingdom. The one statistic which I think should provoke some lateral and strategic thinking in government is the fact that the South Downs attracts 32 million visits per annum. That is a source of potential revenue. I hope that government strategists will explore such avenues. I welcome this debate and the discussion of issues that it has stimulated. We look forward to receiving the assurances from the Government that various speakers have sought.
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am pleased that the House has had the opportunity today to consider the important question of the proper level of protection for the South Downs, and to pay tribute to the good work that has been done over the past five years by the Sussex Downs Conservation
1428
Board. It was refreshing to leave for a short time the issues taxing the people living in Scotland and Wales and become English, as it were.
I want to assure the House that the Government have every intention of continuing to provide an appropriate level of financial support for the Sussex Downs Conservation Board from the public purse until we are in a position to establish a permanent solution for the sympathetic management of the South Downs.
As many of your Lordships have said, for the past five years the Sussex Downs Conservation Board has dealt with the problems of what is a special case among areas of outstanding natural beauty. In the early 1990s the Countryside Commission and the local authorities in East and West Sussex got together to form the new experimental body with which so many of your Lordships have been personally involved. They were prompted by extreme pressures which, in the case of the Downs, are greater than the pressures experienced in most of our national parks.
The Countryside Commission wanted to see whether a large area of outstanding natural beauty under severe pressure could be satisfactorily managed by a local authority joint committee. Accordingly, on an experimental basis, the Countryside Commission entered into an agreement with the local authorities to set up and fund the Sussex Downs Conservation Board on a 50:50 basis for a six year period. As your Lordships are aware, that period ends on 31st March 1998 and of course that has prompted a great deal of interest and concern about what should follow.
In paying tribute to the achievements of the board perhaps I may echo the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who paid tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
There is almost universal agreement that the Sussex Downs Conservation Board has achieved a great deal during the experimental period, and has undoubtedly established a sound base for future and further work. Among its important achievements have been the establishment and development of an integrated management service and volunteer ranger service. It has also produced a management strategy for the area and a landscape report which has been adopted as supplementary planning guidance. Although the local authorities have not delegated their planning powers to the conservation board, the board has made good use of its right to comment on planning applications and I believe has had some success in influencing development plan policies and development control decisions. Certainly, an independent report commissioned by the Countryside Commission, which was delivered last year, concluded that the conservation board had brought about real improvements to the planning and management of the area. The importance of the local commitment and the sense of identity in the area have been echoed by many speakers in your Lordships' House today.
Before addressing the question of what happens after 31st March 1998, it is important to deal with

1429
the key role of the Countryside Commission. It is important to bear in mind that the Countryside Commission habitually operates as an innovative body. It supports many experimental projects for a limited period in order for them to become self sustaining. It does not and cannot afford to allocate large amounts of its grant in aid for indefinite core funding of particular bodies. In the current year, 1997–98, the commission is spending £640,000 on the Sussex Downs which works out at about 35 per cent. of the total amount that the commission has to spend on all 37 areas of outstanding natural beauty in the country. The commission has taken the view that there are a number of other areas which are under pressures not dissimilar to the Sussex Downs. It recognises the importance of providing a reasonable level of assistance to as many of those areas as possible. From the beginning there has been a recognition by all concerned that it was a six year period.
Despite that, and although sufficient steps to secure the future of the conservation board after March 1998 have not been made over the past five years, neither the Government nor the Countryside Commission has been prepared to leave the good work of the board threatened. That is why we have agreed with the Countryside Commission a further tranche of funding for the conservation board of more than £1 million. Members of this House with a particular interest in the Sussex Downs will no doubt have been aware of the joint announcement by the Countryside Commission and the conservation board on 1st July. The commission will provide £1,050,000 for the board over the period to 2000–2001 to fund specific projects which the conservation board is to agree with the commission as part of an overall work programme. The commission will keep Ministers informed about the development of the work programme and the continued progress of the conservation board. We are determined that the future programme will be a success.
The issue of local authority funding is extremely important. It was raised by several speakers. The local authorities in the areas have made clear that they are keen to see an agreement with the conservation board and are committed to seeking agreement on that. After all, the two counties were keen to set up the board in the first place. Without an exceptional commitment from the local authorities, the position that we are in today would not be so strong.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, raised the question of Countryside Commission funding. I know that there has been some criticism in the press. It is undeniably true that the figure I mentioned—£1,050,000—divided by three, leaves a smaller figure per annum than the figure in excess of £600,000 which the commission has provided during the experimental period. There are two specific points to be made in response to that.
1430
First, as I explained, the commission is contributing additional funding to the board by extending its support beyond the period originally agreed. That therefore hardly represents a cutback.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, asked whether there were yearly limits in relation to that funding. No, there are not, my Lords. It will be drawn on as it is needed to make progress on the work programme. We very much hope that the long-term arrangements that we shall develop will be in place by the third year.
In terms of reaching the stage of putting in place the results of the consultation, it is difficult to say anything about an outcome which would meet with the universal approval of the Members of this House who have taken part in tonight's debate. The Government are committed to instituting a consultation process on the best way forward in the medium and longer term. That consultation will begin later in the year. There is likely to be a special conference, in Sussex or East Hampshire as part of that process.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, raised the timetable for the consultation. The precise timetable and terms of reference are still subject to discussion by the department and the Countryside Commission. The mechanics of the consultation will be handled by the Countryside Commission, which is the Government's statutory adviser on these matters. The commission will liaise very closely with the department both in drawing up the consultation package and in the analysis of the response.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who gave us the opportunity tonight to discuss these matters, and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, raised the issue of future membership. That is a matter for consideration during the consultation period. I have no doubt that a wide range of views will be put on what the future membership of a successor or continuing body ought to be.
It is extremely important, in response to detailed questions about the sorts of issues that will be raised and what the givens will be at the start of the consultation, to recognise and respect both the needs of the locals within the terms of reference and the cost on the public purse of any possible timetable. The Countryside Commission is expecting to report in the spring of 1998. That is our understanding at this stage, but, note the word "expecting", that is not definitive.
Among the important issues raised is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who asked about clarifying the geographical coverage. It is clear that the South Downs extend into Hampshire as well as East Sussex. The Hampshire area of outstanding natural beauty is an important part of the framework of the area to be considered. We are keen to see a solution that will bring the management of the whole of the South Downs together.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the issue of flax. In light of the time and the detail of the debate, perhaps I may write to him in greater detail. Officials at the DETR have been working closely with MAFF

1431
and English Nature, in order to examine urgently a range of options, including the benefits and disadvantages of both voluntary and statutory approaches.
In conclusion, I thank all those who have taken part, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for giving us this opportunity. My noble friend referred to the accelerated roads review; the outcome of that process or at least the 12 urgent programmes will be known before the House rises.
1432
The Government are committed to ensuring that the next phase of the project is successful, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said, both for those who live locally and those of us who need the resource to be protected nationally. We need to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is able to walk without disturbing my noble friend Lord Rea, and that processes for the future protect this vital part of our natural heritage.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before ten o'clock.

  Life Peers Created Since 1979
  Life Peers Created Since 1979
  Ministers: Private Investments
  Ministers: Private Investments
  Food Chemical Surveys: Information
  Food Chemical Surveys: Information
  Maps: Circular 2/93 Guidance
  Maps: Circular 2/93 Guidance
  Vehicular Rights of Way: High Court Judgment
  Vehicular Rights of Way: High Court Judgment
  Goodwin v. UK: Judgment
  Goodwin v. UK: Judgment
  Written Answers: Advisory Cost Limit
  Written Answers: Advisory Cost Limit
  Ministers: Security Vetting
  Ministers: Security Vetting
  Guide to Government Procedures
  Guide to Government Procedures
  Ministers and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
  Ministers and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
  EC Staff: Equal Opportunities
  EC Staff: Equal Opportunities
  Digital Broadcasting: Channel Bundling
  Digital Broadcasting: Channel Bundling
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Law of the Sea Convention
  THORP: Plutonium Recovery
  THORP: Plutonium Recovery
  Sellafield: Plutonium Recovery
  Sellafield: Plutonium Recovery
  Lord Simon of Highbury: Government Responsibilities
  Lord Simon of Highbury: Government Responsibilities
  Wine sold by the Glass
  Wine sold by the Glass
  Medicines Control Agency: Framework Document
  Medicines Control Agency: Framework Document
  Asylum Seekers: Local Authority Costs
  Asylum Seekers: Local Authority Costs
  Terminally Ill Patients: Assessment of Suffering
  Terminally Ill Patients: Assessment of Suffering
  Genetically Engineered Human Blood Components
  Genetically Engineered Human Blood Components
  NHS Pensions Agency Report and Accounts
  NHS Pensions Agency Report and Accounts