Sitting of 30 July 1997

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

Adjournment (Summer)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]
9.35 am
Mr. Patrick Hall: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech—the first speech by the first Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Bedford.
The constituency is really made up of two towns, Bedford and Kempston. Bedford is the county town of Bedfordshire, and has been a centre of regional importance since Saxon times, if not longer. Kempston has been a village for most of its history, with evidence of Roman settlement. Bedford grew rapidly during the 19th century, and later physically joined Kempston to create a single built-up area, but an area with two distinct identities for the two towns—to the extent that Kempston has its own elected town council and mayor.
Unfortunately, those separate identities are not reflected in the official name of the constituency, and I shall therefore seek to change that name, to reflect the two towns of which it consists.
Bedford and Kempston is a good place to live and work, and a good place to represent. I am honoured to have been given the chance to serve my home town—if I may call it that, having lived in Bedford for 18 years, and in the locality for 34 years.
However, if I am still to be regarded by some as a migrant to the area—there are some old Bedfordians who might take that view—I am in good company, because Bedford and Kempston were founded on inward migration. Migrants came first from the surrounding villages when industry and the railways arrived in the 19th century.
Secondly, between the wars, the locally buoyant engineering and electrical engineering base attracted people from the depressed northern cities and from south Wales. Thirdly, after 1945, the towns expanded rapidly to their present size, attracting young families from London and elsewhere in Britain—and also from continental Europe, especially from Italy, Poland and the former Yugoslavia. People also came from the new Commonwealth—from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Caribbean.
There are people from more than 50 countries of origin living and settled in Bedford and Kempston. They have their various identities and, in many cases, their children, and their children's children, were born in the area and are growing up there. They are all part of the wider community and they contribute strongly to it.
258
That makes for a constituency rich in the diversity of its people and, therefore, strong in its potential for the many ideas and talents that we all need to bring to fruition if we are to work together to build a better world.
That ethnic diversity was recognised and respected by my predecessor for the Bedford part of the new constituency—Sir Trevor Skeet, who retired at the general election. I am pleased to acknowledge his role both as a constituency Member of Parliament for 27 years and as a man who displayed independence of thought. I wish him and Lady Valerie Skeet a long and happy retirement. I also wish to salute the service to Bedford of the two Labour Members of Parliament elected by slim majorities in 1945 and 1966—Tom Skeffington-Lodge and Bryan Parkin.
During the past three months, my constituents have shared with me some of their problems, hopes and fears. There are always many problems, of course, and most are connected with the wider social, economic and political realities.
In housing, for example, there is a constant expression of need associated with an inadequate supply of affordable housing to buy and to rent. There are those whose lives have been blighted by the deep injustices associated with the bureaucratic nightmare which is the Child Support Agency. There are many others whose lives have been reduced by the creaking welfare benefit system which locks so many people into a life of dependency and relative poverty, instead of offering a helping hand into education, training, skills and dignity.
I am sure that I am not alone in being told about the stresses and worries generated by the growing pressures on community and social services, the national health service and local schools, despite the very best efforts of dedicated staff. People are concerned about crime, vandalism, jobs, pensions and transport, but they also tell me that, since the general election, the mood has changed for the better.
There are still problems—there always will be—but there is now a feeling that there can be solutions. People are not displaying unrealistic expectations or a desire for magic instant answers, but they believe that we can make progress—a step at a time if need be—and for the many, not just the few.
People in Bedford and Kempston want to see smaller class sizes, quality child care and early-years education. They want lifelong learning to become a reality for all those people who have been denied it for too long. My constituents support the prospect of a revived NHS and they want to see fairness at work and a realistic minimum wage.
People support the measures to tackle unemployment and to boost investment by supporting business by helping people to train and improve their skills. Many of my constituents have made it clear also that they want this country to be positive in Europe and to play our part in fair trade and international co-operation, peace and justice. They want us to be active in cleaning up the global environment in our interdependent one world.
So many people who feel that they have been forgotten over the years—including pensioners and those with disabilities—are waiting with interest for the reviews of the benefits system, pensions and community care. If I may say so, I hope that my constituents will not just wait, but will have their say in the consultation process. In my

259
view, a wind of change is blowing through the country today. Expectations are rising, but with higher expectations comes the serious responsibility of the need to deliver. My constituents are patient and are prepared to give the Government a fair chance.
There are concerns about the effect of the strong pound on industry and employment, and about the consequences of the appalling state of the public finances which we have inherited and which point to further cuts in schools, hospitals and local council services. I urge the Government to be sensitive to those concerns and to help to minimise the damage before we get on to the long road to recovery outlined in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget.
There are concerns about traffic congestion and pollution, and I hope that local interested parties will respond to the consultation exercise on trunk roads in England, argue for measures that will help to complete the bypass in Bedford and Kempston and press more widely for improved rail services. With rising expectations and greater public interest in politics and our national life, it is now all the more important that we open up our democracy so that all voices can be heard. That means action on freedom of information, and parliamentary, electoral and constitutional reform.
Since the general election, this country has begun a great journey and we cannot turn back. I have no doubt that it will be a long and often difficult road, but it will be worth it. In common with the majority of the British people, most of my constituents offer their support and their good will to help to ensure, in the words of a former leader of my party, John Smith,
"that the best of Britain is yet to come."
9.44 am
Mr. Michael Howard: May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on his maiden speech? He spoke of his constituency with the intimacy which comes of long residence, and my right hon. and hon. Friends particularly appreciated his tribute to Sir Trevor Skeet.
I speak—unusually, from the Dispatch Box, in this debate—to raise the question of the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy and particularly its application to defence-related exports. I do so because there has been no previous opportunity to do so and because the Foreign Secretary has gone to extraordinary lengths to evade questioning on this topic.
Let me make it quite clear at the outset that the Opposition whole-heartedly support the view that this country should have an ethical foreign policy. We believe that we had an ethical foreign policy under the previous Government. In considering applications for export licences for defence-related equipment, for example, those responsible were required to take into account, among many other factors, the
"behaviour of the recipient state and its human rights record."
Indeed, on many occasions under the previous Government, licences for defence-related equipment were refused.
The Foreign Secretary clearly intends to take a different approach—or at least he wants people to think that he is taking a different approach. First, with a flourish of
260
trumpets, the Foreign Secretary issued his mission statement in the Locarno suite of the Foreign Office on 12 May. He described it as a new mission statement and said that it set out new directions in foreign policy. He said that he was setting a new direction for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
In the course of setting out these new directions, the Foreign Secretary put up a series of Aunt Sallies and proceeded to knock them down. He said, for example:
"the Labour Government does not accept that political values can be left behind when we check in our passports to travel on diplomatic business."
But nor, as I have made clear, did any of my former right hon. Friends who served as Foreign Secretary since 1979 accept that. Nor do I.
The second occasion on which the Foreign Secretary raised the matter outside the House was on 17 July. In a speech entitled "Human Rights into a New Century" he set out a dozen steps to
"carry through the Government's commitment to raise international human rights standards."
Most of these steps continue the policies of the previous Government. In many cases, the fact that they do so is openly acknowledged.
On Monday, the Foreign Secretary announced the criteria to be used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms under this allegedly new policy. Given the importance that the Foreign Secretary clearly attaches to the policy—and given the fact that there has been so much press briefing about it—one might have expected the announcement to be made by way of an oral statement to the House. One might have thought that the Foreign Secretary was proud of his initiative.
Not a bit of it. The announcement was smuggled out in a written answer to a question from the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms). There was no opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary and we are left to speculate on the meaning to be attributed to this delphic pronouncement.
Let us test it by reference to one of the more controversial cases in this field—the export of Hawk jets to Indonesia. The sale of those aircraft to Indonesia was initiated by the Labour Government in 1978, less than three years after Indonesian troops entered the capital of East Timor. However, as a senior member of the Government insisted to the Financial Times on 18 July:
"there is no evidence that the aircraft is being used in East Timor. Our intelligence on that is very clear".
The Minister also said, in the same report in that newspaper:
"the decision on Hawks should not be seen as a sign that new applications for similar export licences would be approved".
Why not, if they have not been used in East Timor?
Later briefing makes the tale even murkier. Foreign Office sources told The Daily Telegraph—according to yesterday's paper—that, after legal advice, it was decided that it was "unrealistic and impractical" to revoke export licences granted before Labour's election victory. They also said, however:
"the Hawk jet deal would be still seen as acceptable under the new rules".
What we now have is the worst of all worlds—the minimum of clarity, the maximum of confusion. We are discussing not some academic paper, but a policy on which people's livelihoods may depend.

261
I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us at the end of this debate why it was "unrealistic and impractical" to revoke export licences granted before 1 May, if that indeed was the reason for their being allowed to continue. I hope that after the recess, the Foreign Secretary will make some effort to clear up the mess that his various statements have created. I hope that the country will note this sorry episode as yet another example of those warm words from Whitehall signifying nothing that are rapidly becoming the hallmark of this Government.
9.50 am
Mrs. Janet Dean: I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I have heard many excellent speeches by so many Members who, like myself, are new to the House. It seems strange that it should be such a daunting task when many of us have been used to speaking at council and public meetings in our constituencies. Some, like my colleague the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), could not wait to make their first speech. Others, like myself and my predecessor for the constituency, Sir Ivan Lawrence, chose to approach the task at a rather more leisurely pace.
Sir Ivan made his maiden speech on 1 May 1974, and went on to make the longest continuous speech on the Floor of the House in this century—some four hours and 27 minutes. I may have emulated him on the time that it has taken me to make my first speech, Madam Speaker, but I promise I will not follow his latter example, although I commend him for his fortitude.
Before the recess, I wanted to tell the House how delighted I am to have been elected to represent the Burton constituency. I came to live in the constituency in 1968, when I married my dear Alan, who was my inspiration in politics. In those 29 years, the people of the Burton constituency have shown me their warmth, friendship and support, and I thank them for the great honour that they have given me in electing me to the House. I must also thank those who worked so hard to get a Labour Member elected for Burton for the first time since 1945, when Arthur Lyne gained the seat for Labour.
Other Members for Burton have been named Bass, Evershed, Ratcliffe and Gretton. Yes, as the name of my constituency suggests, the largest town is that of Burton upon Trent, the home of brewing—the world capital of the brewing industry. Brewing grew up in Burton because the monks of the local abbey discovered the special qualities of the local well water. By 1880, there were around 40 breweries in Burton. Now we have four—Bass, Carlsberg Tetley, Marston' s and the smaller Burton Bridge Brewery.
The brewers may not now be the major employer in Burton, but the breweries still encompass large areas of the centre of the town. Many fine buildings owe their legacy to the brewing industry. The history of that industry is best displayed at the Bass museum, the home of the famous Bass shire horses.
Burton upon Trent has many qualities, including the Trent washlands, which provide a uniquely attractive informal parkland in the centre of the town. Burton upon Trent has its problems, however. It has the highest unemployment rate of all the main settlements in Staffordshire, and six of the most deprived wards in the west midlands outside the conurbation are in the town centre.
262
I commend the local authorities and industries and all those who are working closely in partnership to try to overcome the high unemployment levels and improve the quality of life in those wards. Single regeneration budget and European regional development fund moneys are particularly important to the regeneration of the centre of Burton, as are the Government's welfare-to-work proposals.
We all know that there is work that needs doing, that there are homes that need improving and insulating, and people who need to use their abilities and develop their talents. In my constituency, 366 young people who have been unemployed for more than six months, and 489 long-term unemployed will benefit from the Government's policies. The 16,500 pensioners in the constituency will benefit from the cut in value added tax on fuel and, whether my constituents live in Burton upon Trent, the villages and rural areas or our other town of Uttoxeter, they now have new hope for the future.
I mentioned the breweries in Burton, but Uttoxeter is famous for its race course, one of the best small courses in the country. Four breweries and a race course—can any other constituency boast of such icons of leisure? Uttoxeter is always classified as a market town, but has always been more than just that. It has always been a working town as well and has weekly cattle and retail markets, which attract visitors from a wider area. Its industries have developed from the agricultural area by which it is surrounded.
Uttoxeter used to be the home of Bamford's agricultural machinery company and a dairy that, even in the days before refrigeration, sent milk by rail up to London. Sadly, both Bamford's and the dairy closed in the 1980s and Uttoxeter lost many local jobs. Elkes Biscuits has continued to grow, however, and is now the largest employer in the area.
The town of Uttoxeter has not only a heritage centre but a memorial to Dr. Johnson. Hon. Members will know of Dr. Samuel Johnson's skill in compiling the first dictionary, but they may not be aware of his connection with Uttoxeter. His father ran a bookstall in the marketplace. One day, when he was ill, he asked young Samuel to stand in for him. Dr. Johnson refused; so, when he was 70, he returned to Uttoxeter and, as an act of penance, stood bareheaded in the rain.
I am not too sure what Dr. Johnson would have thought about the election of a woman Member of Parliament, or the fact that there are now 120 of us in the House. He was known to make disparaging remarks about women. One of his most generous was:
"I am very fond of the company of ladies—I like their beauty … and I like their silence."
I am unsure whether Mary Queen of Scots was kept in silence, but she was certainly imprisoned in Tutbury castle for 18 years. Tutbury is a charming historic village, which is famous for its Tutbury crystal. Close by, near the village of Hanbury, is the site of the biggest explosion ever to take place in this country. The Fauld explosion on Monday 27 November 1944 was caused by an underground bomb store exploding. A farm house and other buildings just disappeared, and 70 people were killed.
There are many attractive villages in my constituency: Marchington; Draycott; Newborough, with its well dressings; and, to the north, Ellastone, Stanton and

263
Mayfield, which border Ashbourne and the Peak district. The rural areas are not without their problems; the six most northerly parishes are part of the SRB 5 area, and the BSE crisis caused much distress to many of my constituents.
One of the greatest success stories is the JCB factory at Rocester. It is set in superb grounds, with lakes, statues and a vast complex of buildings that blend in with the countryside around them. The company is world renowned and has become a symbol of British industry at its best; it has invested in its plant and developed other factory sites around Staffordshire, including one in Uttoxeter, and continues to develop new machines to meet the needs of customers throughout the world.
Next door to Rocester is the pretty village of Denstone, which is the gateway to the Churnet valley and Alton Towers. I am lucky to represent an area of such diversity and I look forward to continuing to work with all those who are involved with the communities in the Burton constituency, including the voluntary sector and our schools, which have welcomed the extra money in the Budget. I will work with local authorities and businesses.
My constituency is truly in the heart of England, ideally situated for inward investment and industrial and commercial development. Now that I have taken hon. Members on a tour of the delights of Burton, I hope that I will have whetted their appetites and that, during the recess, some might think it an ideal spot to visit; whether at the world barrel rolling championships at the Burton festival in September, or at the races in Uttoxeter, they will be given a very warm welcome.
10.1 am
Mr. Thomas Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on her maiden speech, which was thoughtful and composed; she gave us many reasons to visit her constituency, not least the breweries that are based there, and I am grateful to her for not emulating her predecessor by talking for four hours or more.
I should declare an interest in my topic, albeit a non-pecuniary one. I want to discuss the accident and emergency unit at St. Helier, which is the local hospital at which our first child was born two weeks ago. In the past three years, the hospital has been in and out of the news and in the public eye.
Some hon. Members may remember a story that appeared six or nine months ago about a patient who spent 72 hours waiting on a trolley before being moved into the hospital proper. A petition calling for the A and E unit to be kept open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, was signed by 2,500 local residents, as the unit was having to shut its doors at peak times because of overcrowding.
There is no doubt that conditions at the A and E unit will improve, as an extension is being built, but unfortunately, according to the nurses there, it is a case of too little, too late, and they are expected to ballot for industrial action within the next couple of weeks; they have already received approval from the Royal College of Nursing council to go ahead.
I am afraid to say that I am assured that the results of the ballot are a foregone conclusion: the nurses will take industrial action. I hasten to say that the action will be
264
limited and that there is little, if any, risk to patients. The nurses intend to withdraw their good will, which means that they will not work during lunch breaks, as they currently do, or provide cover at short notice.
Why are the nurses taking action? It is not about pay and conditions at the hospital but about their concerns about the quality of care that patients are receiving at the A and E unit. They are worried because the out-patients department is being used an overspill area for the A and E unit. Even the children's waiting area—there is a separate children's unit—is being used for adults because of overcrowding.
The action could start within the next four weeks. I raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Health, but I am afraid that his response was quite blunt: to paraphrase, he said that it was nothing to do with him and was a matter for the hospital management. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised the matter at Prime Minister' s Question Time and got a more conciliatory response, although I think that the underlying message was the same: that it was down to the hospital management.
I accept that the hospital management bears the brunt of responsibility, but the St. Helier trust had a couple of million pounds cut from its budget recently and the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, the main purchaser in the area, has a deficit of more than £10 million, so neither of those organisations will be in a position to help the A and E unit or the nurses, and I am afraid that that leaves the Secretary of State for Health in the firing line.
I hope that we will not be told about jam in the next financial year. The A and E unit is under threat this year and the nurses propose to take industrial action this summer—not next year, but probably within the next four weeks. I hope that the Leader of the House will convey my great concern to the Secretary of State; there is still time for him to take action. He can still take an interest in the dispute and help to secure a painless outcome for patients, staff and management at the hospital.
There is still time to stop the RCN taking action. It should be noted that it would be the first time that the RCN has taken action because of concerns about the quality of patient care. I hope that my plea will not fall on deaf ears and that the Secretary of State will show that the national health service really is safe in the new Government's hands.
10.7 am
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I want to talk about the future of energy provision, and to press for a full debate on a comprehensive energy policy. If we are to plan for the 21st century, we need a fuel policy to secure energy supplies for future generations. Our approach must be built on a firm foundation and we must put the current energy supply policy in a proper perspective.
Because of shortness of time, I intend to focus my remarks on the electricity supply industry. Electricity is supplied from many sources, and I want the various means of generation to continue, but the major source is coal. That is understandable because of our vast coal reserves. At present, about 45 million to 50 million tonnes are produced annually. It creates about 66,000 jobs, which is a substantial contribution to our economy. The distortion in the electricity regenerating industry and the way in

265
which fuel is used for generating electricity gives rise to two prime concerns. One is subsidised foreign coal and the other is the bias in favour of gas.
I am not asking for favours for coal—I am asking for fairness. Instances of unfair competition have been identified and form the subject of negotiations. Subsidies are a case in point. Government Departments are involved. The artificially low price of electricity generated from gas significantly distorts the generation of baseload electricity in favour of gas at the expense of coal.
The Financial Times of 17 June reported that the German coal industry received substantial subsidies, which resulted in the
"'dumping' of German anthracite in the British market."
Germany captures a quarter of the United Kingdom's 400,000-tonne-a-year market for anthracite. Mr. Keith McNair, the chief executive of Celtic Energy, claimed that German producers were selling their coal for less than the cost of its production. According to the report:
"Bonn spends about DM10.3 billion in subsidies to keep 85,000 miners employed in the coal industry.… it costs German producers up to £100 a tonne to mine and ship anthracite."
It sells in the United Kingdom at £75 per tonne, and the market price ranges between £85 and £100 per tonne.
There is thus a bias in favour of German coal which affects the United Kingdom coal market. The Germans argue that if they had to run down their coal industry as a result of the withdrawal of subsidies, Germany would lose its position as a leading manufacturer of mining equipment. Our engineering industry is also affected, because German mining equipment manufacturers are subsidised. That is why we should have a major debate on the coal industry.
The inability of coal to compete with gas on a fair and level basis results from significant distortions, which result in electricity generated by gas being bid by electricity generators into the baseload generation market in the electricity pool of England and Wales at artificially low prices as a result of uneconomic bidding behaviour, which displaces coal-fired generation plant in favour of gas. The crucial part of bids for fuel is the base load principle. As the generating industry is biased in favour of gas, coal-fired generators cannot bid for the base load and have to bid into the mid-merit market. That is unfair competition.
All the coal industry is asking for is the opportunity to bid to supply fuel for baseload generation. That is not unreasonable.
Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the implications of an increase in coal-fired generation for the Government's carbon dioxide emission targets?
Mr. O'Brien: I will deal with that point, but my point is to underline the unfairness of subsidised coal and the bias in favour of gas created by not allowing coal to tender for the baseload.
The United Kingdom coal industry accepts its responsibility to reduce emission levels by using clean coal technology. It will be more than able to make its contribution to the Government's commitment to a 20 per cent. reduction on 1990 levels of carbon dioxide by 2010. In order to meet that target, we need to start investing in clean coal technology now.
266
The coal industry is geared up for the introduction of clean coal technology. I am a former mineworker and a member of a mining community. We accept that the coal industry has a responsibility to promote clean coal technology. We have the means. What we need now is the resources to help us to move in that direction.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has said that an acceptable energy policy must encompass three watchwords—diversity, security and sustainability. Diversity can be defined in principle as a fuel mix, not a monoculture or duopoly based on one or two sources of energy. Today's mix of gas, nuclear and coal gives us that diversity. A dash for gas at the expense of coal would make us overdependent on one fuel. The coal industry accepts the need for diversity. We are asking for the opportunity to play a full part in electricity generation.
Security can be defined as the need to ensure that the country is not dependent on imported energy. United Kingdom gas reserves are limited, and it is estimated that they will run out early in the 21st century; yet coal is in abundance here in our own country.
A sustainable energy policy will ensure that future generations have access to competitive sources of energy that can be produced in an environmentally acceptable way, using clean coal technology. It is accepted that the non-fossil fuel levy will be dispensed with in a few months' time. Some of the resources could be used to develop clean coal technology. That would give us the means to produce electricity from coal while meeting the emissions levels requested by the Government.
The non-fossil fuel levy has been used to support nuclear power and the development of renewable sources of energy. If we can channel some of those resources into clean coal technology, I believe that we could create a balanced system of energy provision for the future. If we are to have a comprehensive energy policy that makes use of the diverse fuels available to us, we must consider the use of coal as a serious option. There is an urgent need to address that matter, because, although the coal industry is efficient and a success story, that cannot be maintained unless we consider the use of subsidies, the inherent unfairness of the comparative prices of gas and coal and the use of clean coal technology.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide time in the near future for a full debate on a comprehensive energy policy. Hon. Members would then have the opportunity to express their concerns either for or against the arguments that I have raised. I rest my case.
10.21 am
Mr. David Tredinnick: I, too, extend my congratulations to the hon. Members for Burton (Mrs. Dean) and for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on their interesting and informative maiden speeches.
I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Bedford, because I well recall serving with Sir Trevor Skeet in the Committee on the Electricity Bill, which privatised the industry. I noted his great expertise in nuclear power and all matters relating to energy.
I understand that there was some dispute locally about whether Sir Trevor should stand for re-election in 1992. I wrote to the Bedford Echo—I believe that that is its

267
title, but the hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong—to say what a tremendous job Sir Trevor had done in that Committee, and I explained that the expertise of senior Members is valuable to the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is fortunate that Sir Trevor decided to retire at the previous election and did not contest the seat.
I wish to raise issues relating to statutory instruments, or secondary legislation, and if time permits I would also like to say a word about the threat behind vitamins. I should like to discuss secondary legislation wearing my hat as the Chairman of the JCSI—the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments—and Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. There are three areas of concern which those Committees are currently considering, which I wish to raise with the Leader of the House and bring to the attention of hon. Members.
The first relates to matters outstanding from the previous Parliament. The second concern relates to issues that are the subject of current debate, and the third relates to issues of concern for the future. We are considering them at a time when the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of the Commons is considering certain recommendations, and there is the strong possibility of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. I put it to hon. Members that there has never been a better time to consider such matters.
The outstanding issues from the previous Parliament relate to the scrutiny of delegated legislation and statutory instruments derived from European legislation. The Procedure Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), published a report in June 1996 on delegated legislation, which drew attention to the deficiencies in the current system of consideration and scrutiny of statutory instruments.
The report recommended that the praying time, the time to object against negative instruments—there are, of course, negative and affirmative ones, and negative instruments do not necessarily go into Committee—should be extended to 60 days. It also recommended that a Standing Order should be introduced to prevent the House from taking a decision on any instrument until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had completed its consideration of it.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it recommended that a new Select Committee should be established to identify which of the many instruments laid before Parliament involve important questions of policy and should therefore be drawn to the special attention of the House. I draw that recommendation particularly to the attention of the Leader of the House.
That sifting Committee would go some way to filling what has often been identified as a gap in the process of scrutiny of instruments. The JCSI is only empowered to look at the vires or the legality of instruments, rather than consider their drafting or their merits. I must tell the right hon. Lady that a Government response to that report is still awaited, and perhaps she may care refer in her reply to her current deliberations and whether those points have been taken into consideration.
The second outstanding matter that has exercised the Committee and which is the subject of considerable debate is instruments derived from European obligations. In the same report, the Procedure Committee
268
recommended that statutory instruments made under the European Communities Act 1972 should be colour-coded or marked in some way, to make their derivation easily identifiable by hon. Members.
Secondly, in a report on European business, which was published in March 1997, the Committee made further recommendations that the proposed sifting Committee on statutory instruments should be empowered to look at how Whitehall Departments implement directives in United Kingdom legislation. That is a topical issue, because many of my hon. Friends might say that Whitehall is attempting to ride roughshod over the wishes of hon. Members and force matters that should not be forced.
That is a matter of concern to the JCSI because of gold-plating—jargon for the over-implementation of European legislation—and the sheer number of instruments which create offences, and are unsatisfactorily drafted in terms of standard United Kingdom legislative practice. What proposals does the Leader of the House have to implement the Committee's recommendations relating to European legislation?
The current debate on delegated legislation relates to devolution. According to the Government's proposals for Scottish devolution, there are many issues that we must consider relating to statutory instruments. I give the right hon. Lady notice that there should be a separate debate in the autumn on secondary legislation.
The devolution of power to Scotland raises issues to do with how the Scottish Parliament will make and scrutinise secondary legislation. What will be the relationship between any Committee established by the Parliament for this purpose and the Joint Committee of this House?
The Scottish Parliament will create, in its legislation on devolved—non-reserved—areas, new powers to make subordinate legislation, exercisable by Ministers of the Scottish Executive. According to papers already published, the Scottish Parliament will constitute its own Committees to scrutinise subordinate legislation, whether made under existing Westminster Acts or future Scottish Acts. The Westminster Parliament's Joint Committee, the JCSI, and the Select Committee, the SCSI, will, I infer, scrutinise delegated legislation on reserved matters; but that is not clear.
It is not just the Midlothian question that is unclear—there are many other unclear issues at stake.
Sir Patrick Cormack indicated assent.
Mr. Tredinnick: I am pleased to see my hon. Friend nodding assent.
The sheer volume of secondary legislation passing through this place is staggering. I have already, for instance, referred to the amount of European legislation.
Will the JCSI check the Scottish Parliament's statutory instruments to see whether they are legal and free of conflicts with primary legislation; or will statutory instruments go straight off to Edinburgh, where it may be found that they conflict with current law? This is a technical matter which gives rise to great concern, and some thought must be given to it.
The other devolution proposal, for a Welsh Assembly, is quite different, but just as complicated. There is no easy way out. Just as we found in 1979, when the autumn

269
debates begin, it will be seen that nothing is going to be easy. The fact that the Labour Government have thus far allocated 48 hours of debate will not serve them well, either. In 1979, there were 47 days of debate on the Floor of the House, not to delay proceedings but to examine all these questions. In the end, there was no solution, which is why the legislation fell. Curtailing debate this time will not lead to a solution.
I do not, however, intend to be sidetracked today. The Welsh proposals for the scrutiny of secondary legislation by the Welsh Assembly are, unlike the Scottish proposals, set out in some detail in the White Paper. The Assembly—it will not be a Parliament—will be able not just to make but to amend and reject secondary legislation. Its Committees will also be able to consult, and take expert advice, on draft orders. The power currently possessed by the Secretary of State to revoke, replace or amend secondary legislation passed by this House will be given to the Assembly.
How will this work in practice? What are the implications for the relationship between Westminster and the Assembly? What are the implications of this extension of powers for the scrutiny process at Westminster?
The Welsh Assembly will be a deliberative body; it will inherit executive powers from the Welsh Office, including the power to make subordinate legislation. Hence the Assembly, under Westminster legislation and vires, will make secondary legislation. If that secondary legislation is arguably ultra vires, it will be referred to the Privy Council's Judicial Committee. Is that the Government's intention? Do they plan to let the Privy Council sort out these matters? That, at any rate, is how things stand now.
The Committees of the Assembly will prepare the legislation, but the Assembly itself will approve and make it by order. Scrutiny of secondary legislation will be done apparently by a secondary legislation Scrutiny Committee of the Assembly, considering first draft orders. But implementation of the UK's European obligations will remain at Westminster—or will it? We do not know. It is yet another grey area. I am sorry to burden the Leader of the House with so many grey areas, but we really do need answers, faced as we are with complex legislation which, some would argue, is about the break-up of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it may lead to precisely that.
These are not minor issues relating to a particular Bill or order. They relate to the whole principle of the government of these islands. They refer back to the unravelling of decisions made, I think, at the time of the Act of Union in 1704—although I am not an historian, and I stand to be corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack).
Sir Patrick Cormack: Seventeen hundred and seven.
Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful. I spent some time with my hon. Friend in the last Parliament on parliamentary business, and I learned then of his expertise.
The question remains: will responsibility for the scrutiny of instruments implementing our European obligations remain with the JCSI? Will scrutiny of statutory instruments made under transferred powers be done by the Welsh Scrutiny Committee? Will other statutory instruments remain the responsibility of the Joint Committee? This autumn, we need a debate on the whole issue of statutory instruments. It would be a grave mistake not to consider it.
270
My final point on devolved secondary legislation concerns the future of the European convention on human rights. It will have an impact on the exercising of powers to make delegated legislation—not necessarily a well-known fact.
We need to know what consultation there will be on issues of parliamentary scrutiny in this area. We need to know more about the suggestion that either a Joint Committee of both Houses or the existing Joint Committee should examine the matter. Do the Government propose to set up a new Committee? Will it be a Sub-Committee of one of the newly established Committees; or will members of the Joint Committee which I chair have this responsibility? I should like an answer from the right hon. Lady.
I want to raise one other subject entirely unrelated to statutory instruments. I do so as the long-serving—almost 10-year—treasurer of the parliamentary group on alternative and complementary medicine. My point relates to the Government's decision to withdraw or ban a range of vitamin B6 supplements, which, among other things, help with pre-menstrual tension, heart disease and a range of other ailments. I say this against the background of a tendency to turn ever more to alternative medicine and away from conventional medicine.
The fact remains that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has decided to ban higher dose supplements. Time prevents me from going through all the arguments today, and I know that other colleagues want to speak—but this issue, I warn the Government, will not go away.
If MAFF wants to expand its postroom, fine. Thousands of letters will be pouring in on this issue. The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has taken the soft option, and has insisted on pills of an unnecessarily high degree of safety. That has enraged people in the world of alternative medicine.
In all my time running the secretariat for the parliamentary group, I have never come across a Government decision so at variance with so much professional thought in the industry, and so annoying to so many people and practitioners.
In the previous Parliament, the Government had to deal with the herb comfrey, and we won that case. The Minister of State is in his submarine and going straight for the bottom, because this issue will not go away. I implore the Leader of the House urgently to tackle him and ask him to review his decision. I should be most grateful if she did so.
10.39 am
Mr. Jim Dobbin: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech during this general debate. I am pleased to be making it before the recess, because that means that I can go home feeling that I have achieved a little. I have to be careful what I say, because I believe that you had a connection with part of my constituency in earlier days.
My constituency is one of those that make up the metropolitan borough of Rochdale. Having been subjected to boundary changes, the constituency of Heywood and Middleton now incorporates the wards of Castleton and

271
of Norden and Bamford. When it was in the constituency of Rochdale, Norden and Bamford was probably an 8,000 Conservative block vote, but at the last election there were some major switches, and in parts of the ward we took up to 40 per cent. of the vote. Both Castleton and Norden and Bamford were formerly part of the Rochdale constituency.
It is said that Heywood was created in the 18th century by the father of Sir Robert Peel. It has a strong sense of working-class history and tradition. Today, Heywood is an expanding centre for the distribution industry on one side of the M62 and close to the M66, which motorway has recently been under review but is now due to be completed, thanks to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is a most important road link around the Manchester conurbation.
Heywood has many links with historical events and people, and certainly has dramatic links with this House. Peter Heywood of Heywood hall is credited with being one of those who, on 4 March 1605, snatched the lantern from the hand of one Guy Fawkes. Right hon. and hon. Members therefore have a former constituent of Heywood to thank for the preservation of this democratic establishment—I nearly said a former constituent of mine, but that would have given away my age. The lantern is on show at the Ashmolean museum in Oxford.
A descendant of Peter Heywood, also called Peter Heywood, was a midshipman on the famous ship, the Bounty. It is recorded that he was vindicated of mutiny, as one would expect of a fine, upstanding constituent of that town.
To the south of the M62 lies Middleton. Samuel Bamford, one of the great political poets and reformers, led a contingent from Middleton to Manchester, where a number were murdered at Peterloo in 1819.
I represent two wards in Rochdale, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons), my colleague and neighbour, on her tremendous win in the general election. Rochdale has the distinction of being the birthplace of the Co-operative movement, which recently celebrated its 150th anniversary. As recent leader of Rochdale council, I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament.
I am proud of the radical traditions and politics of my constituency, which I inherited from my predecessor Jim Callaghan—little Jim Callaghan, known widely in the House as "Gentleman Jim". He spent 22 years in the House, and was recognised throughout the constituency as a hard-working Member who built his majority from 500 to more than 8,000. In this year's general election, the majority was 17,500. Jim was always loyal to his constituents and to his party, and he left the House knowing that he had done a good job.
Before him, Joel Barnett, now Lord Barnett and a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, served the people of Heywood with great distinction, and is remembered with great affection. I can never fill the shoes of my two eminent predecessors—I can merely try to do my best.
Having come from local government, I judge much of the legislation introduced in the House by the effect it will have on local government, services to local communities
272
and the local economy, because that is where the people will measure its impact. The Government's commitment to schools, raising standards, smaller class sizes and repairing school buildings will be most welcome in my constituency, where many classes contain more than 30 pupils and many schools are in a state of disrepair.
I especially welcome the Government's early decision to fund a new hospital for my constituents based in Rochdale. The proposed new deal on welfare to work is a real bonus for the area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, other partners, represented by the local training and enterprise council, the chamber of commerce, business link and the council, and I have already produced a scheme that I hope the Minister concerned will find exciting. Allowances for small business and the release of capital receipts will clearly benefit the local economy. I am so far pleased with the contents of the Budget.
However, I have for some time been concerned about the links and the relationship between central and local government, which have deteriorated in recent years. The debate on the proper relationship between central and local government is not a new one: its origins in this country date back to the middle ages and the territorial conflicts between the monarchy and nobility over the relationship between the Crown and its most powerful subjects. The compromise reached with the signing at Runnymede of the Magna Carta, which laid the foundations of our so-called unwritten constitution, can be seen as the forerunner of modern conflicts in local and central relations.
We need to put the relationship between central and local government into perspective. Despite the supremacy of Parliament, which was established during the English civil war in the 17th century, there has always been an uneasy relationship with the regions and localities; but, even without a written constitution, the importance of local government and administration has been acknowledged. Today, we need to define a new relationship with the centre that meets the challenges of the next century.
Our role in a new Europe and our responsibilities to our own citizens also need to be redefined. When, all over Europe, the emphasis is on decentralisation, devolution and the delegation of powers, this country should meet the challenge and give leadership in the transformation of our society and our economy into smaller, more manageable, self-governing but interdependent units. We must move away from centralisation, bureaucracy and conformity. Regionalism and local self-government will become more important in the Europe of tomorrow than the complex interplay between independent nation states.
Today, when nearly all our major economic and industrial competitors recognise the importance of local self-determination, economic autonomy and the need -to provide a flexible localised response to a changing environment, economy and society, we have created a great centralised system that destroys local initiative and disregards local achievement.
Through the introduction of universal education, sanitation and welfare, and through the great cotton entrepreneurs of the north and the great civic fathers such as Joseph Chamberlain in Birmingham, who promoted self-esteem and a measure of local control, this country pioneered great developments in local self-government during the 19th century; but we are now sadly falling way

273
behind other European countries. On the continent, local government is a major force behind economic and social change. Its relationship with the centre is that of a partnership and its role is that of an activator and enabler.
Local government in this country is less powerful than it was 18 years ago. It has less discretion and less money, and it is hampered by a legislative straitjacket designed to prevent it from responding to local needs in contravention of policies determined at the centre. Despite all that, local government is resilient and has responded to changes in our economy and society. It has attempted to match limited resources to changing needs and has, within the confines of its powers, attempted to promote a measure of local autonomy.
I argue that, whatever we might think of local government, it has been able to adapt to a new environment and can provide the key to our future success as a country, if it is allowed to act in partnership with our communities, with local business and industries, and with the voluntary sector, to intervene positively on behalf of the areas that it represents.
I am sure that we shall see parallels with moves in the private sector to greater integration and decentralisation of production groups with their own cost centres. There is an important difference, however. The private sector normally seeks to increase demand and can then increase supply in order to boost profits. Local government cannot do that. It is essentially a rationing agent, hemmed in by central Government's financial controls, which are far more primitive than any specific service-based legislation.
I am now coming to the end of this presentation. We must move with the times. We have become, as one commentator has suggested,
"Europe's constitutional pygmy, a truncated democracy in which the entire political and economic life of the nation revolves around an all sovereign House of Commons."
That notion of democracy in a complex society is outdated and increasingly threatens not only our liberties but our pockets. The Government's policy of devolution of power and decision making—this is where I differ from the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick)—will surely go some way to bridge the obvious gap that exists between central and local government. That, I maintain, will maximise the benefits of the Government's policies and future Budgets.
10.51 am
Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on what he referred to as his "presentation"; it certainly was. He presented his constituency most ably. He will be able to contribute his obvious knowledge, and I should think experience, of local government to future debates, and I am certain that he will be listened to with interest and respect.
I shall now leave the Rochdale area, to ask the Leader of the House one or two questions. Why did she not feel it necessary to make a statement to the House yesterday, when the first report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons was published? Many matters have come before the House since the new Government came into office, but this one affects every hon. Member considerably. I make this speech to draw attention to some aspects of the report in debate before the House rises, and to make more people aware of them.
274
I have some good news and some bad news; I start with the good. I am delighted that the Committee, under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House, was able to present a unanimous report. I am pleased because it confirms several of the reports, awaiting action, produced by the Procedure Committee under my chairmanship. In addition, some new thoughts have been brought into consideration. Most important, however, all members of the Committee agreed that the object of the report was to improve the standard and the thoroughness of legislation that is passed by Parliament.
Some of the new considerations are interesting. First, the Government are willing to publish draft Bills, and the report recommends that there should be some pre-legislative scrutiny of those Bills before they are introduced to the House. Secondly, there might be a First Reading committee to consider that legislation before its Second Reading in the House.
Thirdly—repeating a recommendation by the Procedure Committee—there should be greater use of the Select Committee procedure for Standing Committees, which should be able to investigate aspects of a Bill and cross-question witnesses about it before proceeding with the usual Standing Committee amendment and consideration of the Bill. Those are all efforts to ensure that legislation passed by the House is better understood, and less open to error than it may have been in the past.
The next matter of considerable importance is that, at last, we have a sensible recommendation on the programming of legislation. I have argued for many moons that Oppositions of all parties are mistaken in their belief that long debate in Standing Committee, forcing the guillotine to be introduced, does anything to limit the progress of a Government's legislative programme. At no time since the war has a Bill introduced in the Gracious Speech not been approved legislatively during a full Session of that Parliament, unless a general election has shortened the Session.
Most people have not understood that, when a Bill goes into Committee upstairs, the Leader of the House and the officers supporting the Leader of the House have set a date when it must leave Committee, so that its passage may be completed to a reasonable timetable. When the Opposition have spent days—sometimes up to 100 hours—debating the first few clauses of a Bill, the Government have had to introduce a guillotine to ensure that the Bill was before the House for Report by the date that they had in mind.
If that is the case, in order to avoid wasting time in Committee, why not let Members know the period that the Bill can remain in Committee? That would allow the Committee to decide how best to use its time, so that it might debate every major clause. The Procedure Committee has advanced that argument for many moons, and I am delighted that the Government and the Modernisation Committee have adopted that concept.
I hope that, starting in November—I shall discuss the date later—we shall conduct an experiment. Immediately after Second Reading, the Government will produce—we hope by agreement through the usual channel—an idea of the date when the Bill will leave the Committee. It will then be left to the Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee to decide how the hours shall be devoted so that all clauses may be properly debated.

275
That must have considerable advantages in producing legislation that is better understood and has been thoroughly examined. It will ensure that legislation does not go to the House of Lords that has been only partially considered in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
We seldom pay tribute in the House to the Clerks who serve on Committees. The Principal Clerk at the Table may be embarrassed if I mention him by name, but a paper that he produced was helpful to the House, and Mr. David Natzler, the Second Clerk, has done immense work in producing papers for us. They deserve particular credit.
May I be controversial? I am sorry that the Committee did not start by dealing with Prime Minister's Questions. There is a major arrogance in how the Government altered Prime Minister's Questions without consultation—they are now held only once instead of twice a week. The House has already heard me on this matter, but I shall continue to press it. It is wrong that matters that arise after Cabinet on a Thursday cannot be put to the Prime Minister until the following Wednesday. The Prime Minister talks about wanting to be democratic and pays tribute to the work of the House, but he arrogantly casts the House to one side. We must return to the matter before long.
I have another little hobby horse: I am delighted that we are moving in the direction of modernising the names of Committees so that they describe what Committees do. A Standing Committee does not stand; nor does it last the whole of a Parliament, but only for one Bill. Its sole purpose is to deal with the Bill before it, so I do not understand why it should not be called a legislative Committee. I am glad to say that we shall return to that matter in due course.
I urge the House to pay attention to the report. Will the Leader of the House guarantee today that she will introduce the necessary alterations—there are not many—to Standing Orders so that we can begin this experiment? We should not have to wait until February or March, but should start the experiment in November. The Committee can then monitor it correctly and report to the House on its success in June or July.
I gave the Leader of the House notice of a question that affects the south-west in particular: the improvement of the A30-A303 road links between London and Exeter. Within the "Wessex link", as it is termed, decisions have been made about the run between the north and south of the A36 and A46, which affects the Swindon bypass. I do not wish to argue about those decisions.
However, approval has been given and money earmarked for improvements to the A30-A303 from Marsh to Honiton. The hairpin bends on that road make some aspects of the grande corniche in the south of France look like Woolworth. They are dangerous, and an accident black spot. We need to progress with that, so I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the Government do not delay the matter.
Parts of the main link road between London and the west are just single carriageway on both sides. I shall not bother the House by listing them all, but four areas are set for approval, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will press for improvements, which will benefit the tourist industry. Tourism is the biggest industry and the biggest
276
earner in the south-west, so that link road is of the greatest importance. Will she carry that message to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Deputy Prime Minister who heads that Department?
I hope that the Leader of the House accepts that she deserves much credit for how she has chaired the Committee. She has been the one exception in the Government: there has been no arrogance from her, and I hope that some of her colleagues will copy her excellent example.
11.5 am
Mr. Martin Salter: I rise to make my maiden speech and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to do so before the welcome summer recess. I understand that convention demands that my maiden speech should be non-controversial, which may be difficult; that I describe in glowing terms the delights of my constituency, which I am happy to do; and that I offer generous praise to my predecessor, which I am also happy to do—within reason.
May I take those three themes in reverse order? I am happy to pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Anthony Durant, who represented my constituency of Reading, West from 1983 to 1 May this year. In total, he served the people of Reading for more than 23 years, having first entered Parliament as the hon. Member for Reading, North, which in those days was considered a genuine marginal seat. Incidentally, the good people of Reading have been thoroughly confused by the machinations of the various boundary commissions, which have over the years tended to favour boundaries that benefited the Conservative interest, despite the long and proud Labour tradition of the town of Reading that stretches back to the days even before our most famous parliamentarian, the late and missed Ian Mikardo.
My first conversation of note with Tony Durant, as he was then, was in the summer of 1986—two years after I was elected to Reading borough council and some two months after I became chair of the leisure committee. It was not so much the conversation that stuck in my mind, although if I remember rightly we were discussing the forthcoming general election—from our respective political bunkers we both agreed that it was good that we would be contesting different seats and not fighting each other—as the venue. It was the backstage beer tent at the Reading festival. That would not have been remarkable had it not been for the decision of the previous Conservative-controlled council to scrap the rock festival in 1984 and 1985.
At that time, I learnt two important lessons from Tony Durant: first, he took absolutely no notice of the absurd and unpopular actions of his Conservative council colleagues, which is presumably why he was re-elected to this place long after they had all been wiped out in the council chamber; secondly, he was a man who liked people. Moreover, he was a man who liked people who like drink. He was and still is a convivial and sociable man, in marked contrast to some of the humourless robots who are, I am afraid, too often a feature of British politics.
However, Sir Anthony was not always a pillar of political consistency. He fought the 1974 election opposing the Reading rock festival—that was before he discovered the backstage beer tent—and in 1992 he spoke out against the planned Tory pit closures only to vote in favour of them in December of the same year.

277
Sir Anthony Durant and I share a common interest: a love of the rivers and canals of Berkshire and the Thames valley—Sir Anthony, appropriately, from the cabin of his boat; I, also appropriately, from the muddy river bank fishing for fish more often than I ever fish for votes. We have both spoken out against the decline in our region's rivers, Sir Anthony on over-extraction from the beautiful little River Pang, which has almost been destroyed by the greed of the privatised water companies, and I over the decline of the River Kennet and the River Thames through pollution and threats to develop the watermeadows and over the disgraceful dumping of radioactive effluent by AWE Aldermaston.
Sir Anthony was a hard-working and well-respected constituency Member. His announcement that he planned to retire and not contest Reading, West at the last election persuaded me to seek the Labour nomination for the seat. Although a majority of 13,000 might seem daunting, a good proportion of that number represented Sir Anthony's personal vote, which could not be considered the property of the Conservative hopeful, one Nicholas Bennett. That proved to be the case.
My last conversation with Sir Anthony—I trust that there will be many more—was a month or so after the general election. He was in fine form and from the twinkle in his eye it seemed that that former Government Whip and undoubtedly loyal Conservative was not too unhappy about leaving this place or seeing the unpleasant Mr. Bennett soundly defeated.
I hope that there is no parliamentary convention that obliges hon. Members to speak in glowing terms of their political opponents at a general election. The Leader of the House is not scowling at me, so perhaps there is not. Never in my 25 years in politics have I encountered such a bigoted, bumptious and unpopular individual as Nicholas Jerome Bennett, the would-be Conservative Member for Reading, West, former Member for Pembroke and junior Welsh Office Minister in the last Thatcher Government.
I found it remarkable that when I arrived at the House I received a warm welcome from senior members of all political parties, some of whom are sitting on the Opposition Benches today. They welcomed me not because they knew me or had a particular interest in the internal politics of Reading, but because they had been spared the awful prospect of being lectured and hectored by that individual for the next five years.
In case hon. Members are wondering what they are missing, I shall outline a few of the policies that I will not be supporting and which would have been put forward had Labour not won the seat of Reading, West. They include the wholesale privatisation of the national health service, the removal of the right of council tenants to act as jurors—after all, we cannot have poor people judging rich people, can we?—outlawing abortion and thereby forcing rape victims to go through the agony of giving birth to their assailant's child, removing child benefit from families whose children get into trouble at school—that proposal was condemned by the Bishop of Reading—and branding all homosexuals as immoral and evil.
The list goes on. If it has a familiar ring, that is because it is the manifesto of the hard-line, right-wing No Turning Back group. I trust that that political doctrine was well and truly buried on 1 May 1997.
I shall deal now with my constituency and the town of Reading as a whole. It may be a town, but in reality it is a city and deserves city status as the capital of the Thames
278
valley. Four years ago, the council, of which I was a member, led the campaign for Reading to be granted city status. We hope that that wish will soon be realised.
Reading has an impressive history, sometimes a bad press but a great future. The early settlements grew up at the junction of the Holy Brook and the River Kennet. The Domesday book records that we boasted six mills, five fisheries and a nunnery, which I am sure was useful. In 1121, Henry I founded Reading abbey. Later in that century and in the centuries that followed, Reading was a regular venue when Parliament assembled outside London, often because of plagues in London. I offer Reading as a venue should we get round to rebuilding this place and need a temporary venue for our Parliament.
Elizabeth I granted the town its first royal charter. A mayor was appointed—not elected—and was served by burgesses, but, for the life of me, I do not know what they were or what they did. The civil war was disastrous for Reading. The town changed hands several times from king to roundhead, much like today's two-party politics. The 18th century brought an improvement in communications. The canal was completed from Reading to Newbury and the roads were improved and became a great coaching route to Bath.
The 19th century witnessed the growth of industry—beer, biscuits and bulbs—the three Bs for which Reading became known. These great companies were Simonds the beer, Sutton's the bulbs and Huntley and Palmer's the biscuits. Sadly, only beer remains but I can commend a pint of Courage Best to anyone in need of either a hangover or a laxative.
Reading has attracted bad press, despite its wonderful location at the junction of two rivers in the heart of the Thames valley and on the edge of the Chilterns. In his classic book "Three Men in a Boat", Jerome K. Jerome said of the town:
"We came in sight of Reading about eleven. The river is dirty and dismal here. One does not linger in the neighbourhood of Reading."
Other commentators have described our town as the most boring and average town in Britain and as a dull, dirty and uninteresting place. That is simply not the case, as I am sure Sir Anthony would agree. Our detractors are blinkered or out of date.
Reading is a town with a tremendous future. It is a popular place to live. In a recent survey it was voted the eighth best town in which to work and play. It is in the top 25 per cent. for average household earnings. It has a high degree of economic activity. It is in the heart of silicon valley and generates new jobs in the high tech and communications industries. It has superb sports and leisure facilities and, of course, its famous festivals. It has a lively town centre.
We may have a bad press from time to time, but we have good local newspapers. I am pleased that the Reading Chronicle has emphasised its pride in Reading and has recently launched a Pride in Reading campaign which highlights the growing night life in the town and our new football stadium, which Reading football club will move into next year. Our local team was only four minutes away from glory in the premiership until we lost against Bolton, but perhaps we should not dwell on that for too long.
We have prominent local business activity in firms such as Microsoft, Prudential, Yellow Pages, Foster Wheeler and Digital. An ever-growing number of firms are keen to

279
invest in Reading. Work has started on our £200 million Oracle shopping development. We have pride in our town and our weekly newspaper reflects that, as does our daily newspaper, the Reading Evening Post, which has sponsored many campaigns such as our successful empty homes strategy.
The main argument that I want to advance this morning is the urgent need not just to modernise the arcane workings of the House but radically to overhaul our entire political system. It is a matter of debate whether we need to mark the millennium with a PVC-coated dome, but I am sure that we need to equip our society for the 21st century with a new politics, new political structures and a political system that connects with the public and their aspirations.
We need a political system that is modern, relevant and efficient and which encourages people from all walks of life to put themselves forward for public office. Not to make the change, not to have the courage to pursue the radical constitutional and political agenda, will result in further decline in the reputation of Parliament and of politics and politicians in general. For many of us, the nightmare scenario is an American political system with a 50 per cent. turnout and an increasingly alienated and disfranchised electorate.
It will not be easy for me or my party, with its large majority, to pursue the agenda of political reform with vigour. In my heart, I am a tribalist. I know the songs, the slogans and the war dances of party politics. In my head, however, I know that the two-party system has had its day. It is confrontational, absurd and often irrelevant. No party has a monopoly on truth, progress or good ideas.
I urge the Government to pursue the pluralist agenda further. I for one welcome the involvement of the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Cabinet process and the more controversial involvement of Mr. David Mellor in our new football task force, but those are just small steps down a very long road.
The vision was set out by the then leader of the Labour party, Mr. John Smith. He said at our party conference in Brighton in 1983:
"We are proposing nothing less than a new constitution for a new century. I want to lead a Labour government that will introduce the most radical package of constitutional reform ever proposed by any major political party. This I believe will be the battleground of the 1990s as we define the new politics of a new century. Our choice—Labour's choice—is to build a democracy founded on pluralism, participation and justice."
I hope that the new Government will have the courage to turn into reality the dreams and vision of the late John Smith.
There is a powerful case for electoral reform. It will herald a more consensual style of politics, develop the pluralist agenda and reflect more accurately the wishes of the British people at the ballot box. However, I see no sense in having different electoral systems for Scotland, Wales, Europe and Westminster. The acid test for any electoral system is that it is easily understood by the people who use it. I also favour the retention of the constituency link. That is why I will not get involved in esoteric arguments about the rights and wrongs of different systems of proportional representation. Those systems that retain the constituency link—between the Member of Parliament and the people he or she represents—are the systems that we should support.
280
There is no case at all for the existence of a second Chamber based on the hereditary principle, 75 per cent. of whose Members are there by accident of birth. They had the temerity to inflict 350 defeats on the last Labour Government. During my short time in this place, I have learned that the other place will not inflict 350 defeats on this Labour Government. I believe that there is a case for reforming the second Chamber, but not for its abolition.
I turn now to the reform of the House of Commons. I remind hon. Members—particularly my colleagues on the Government Benches—of the statement in the Labour party policy document "A New Agenda for Democracy", which says:
"There is no doubt that the role of the House of Commons is central to realising the objective of creating the bedrock of a pluralist democracy in the UK, and that as the millennium approaches we need to prepare a legislature fit for a new century."
I welcome the first report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. We are now to have a much improved Order Paper: it is no longer in code and I hope it is understandable to hon. Members and to the public. I welcome the suggestions regarding fuller involvement in the legislative process and better timetabling of Bills.
However, there is much more work to be done. I hope that we can have advance notice of business. If my whip for 27 October can tell me roughly what I will be doing in three months' time, I hope that, when Parliament is sitting, we can have some idea of what we shall be doing in three weeks' time—if only to allow us to plan our activities as Members of Parliament and our liaison with constituents. I suggest that the conduct of debate should be regulated and that some sort of time limit should be imposed—except on maiden speeches, of course.
I am happy that there are Privy Counsellors, but should they be privileged Members of Parliament? Should they really have the opportunity to prevent other hon. Members from participating in debates in this Chamber from time to time? As for the voting system, I have lost count of the number of discussions that I have had with senior Members who defend the Lobby system, which they say presents an excellent opportunity to meet Ministers. I am sure that Ministers really want to hear from 400-odd members of the parliamentary Labour party at five past 10, 11 or 12 at night. It is not an effective way of putting our constituents' cases to Ministers and it is not a good use of our time. I hope that the Government will consider electronic voting, proxy voting and other measures that will make our parliamentary lives more efficient and make us less of a laughing stock.
If we dispense with the Lobbies and the Lobby system, I hope that we can extend the Chamber so that it is less confrontational and there is a seat for every Member. I hope also that the Government will examine the hours of work. Most hon. Members have better things to do at 10 or 11 o'clock at night than join in the club atmosphere of this House and traipse through the Lobbies.
There is also the question of the role of Back Benchers—particularly in light of the Government's massive majority. It is regrettable that early-day motions are merely political graffiti. When a third of hon. Members sign an early-day motion—particularly if there is cross-party support—is there not a case for allocating parliamentary time to discuss that obviously important issue on the Floor of the House? We could go much

281
further and talk about fixed-term Parliaments. I would certainly support any move to outlaw holding local authority elections on the same day as a general election. That emasculates the work of local councils and does not afford a true reflection the electorate's wishes as to whom they want to represent them in Parliament and whom they want to run their councils.
A strong argument has been made—I am nervous as the Whips are in the Chamber—for preventing Whips from being involved in appointing Members to Select Committees. After all, they are Committees of the House that are supposed to scrutinise the actions of the Executive. That argument was put very well by a Member of Parliament who is now a Whip.
I trust that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reply fully to my points and will press her colleagues in government to pursue this agenda. On 1 May, the Labour party was elected to change the face of British politics. I hope that we can get on with it.
11.25 am
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and to commend his maiden speech. He was one of the first new Labour Members I talked to on the first day of the new Parliament and we have had many interesting conversations since then. I am quite sure that, as a result of his modest and moderate speech, which caused great excitement on the Government Front Bench—not least on the part of the duty Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice)—he has an exhilarating political career ahead of him.
The hon. Gentleman touched on many issues concerning Reading, the constitution and our parliamentary system. Perhaps it will not surprise hon. Members to learn that I agree with a number of his comments. The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished local government record. He follows Sir Anthony Durant as Member of Parliament for Reading, West—about whom he made some very nice comments—so he has a considerable act to follow. I think that he is aware of that fact.
The hon. Gentleman is also aware of the constituency connections that seem to be creeping into the debate. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that you represented the Middleton and Prestwich constituency in a previous incarnation—as was alluded to earlier. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who is sitting behind me, won the seat of Reading—which then comprised the whole town of Readin—in 1959. He has reminded me of the considerable struggle that lies ahead for the hon. Gentleman, who will obviously fight for the interests of his constituents and of all the people of Reading.
The hon. Gentleman made certain historical allusions in his speech and he will know that Reading was a royal headquarters during the civil war. I gather that the royalty of the day walked off with the Reading civic silver—royalty are not supposed to behave in that manner, but sometimes they do—which, somehow or other, ended up in Windsor castle. It remained at the castle through the Cromwellian period and the Restoration and is still there. The town of Reading has made various requests for the return of the silver, but it remains in royal hands. I hope
282
that the hon. Gentleman will make its recovery a priority so that it may play a major part in the egalitarianism of future constitutional reform.
Mr. Salter: I am slightly worried that the hon. Gentleman is inciting me to commit an act of treason.
Mr. Temple-Morris: I judge from his maiden speech that the hon. Gentleman is well capable of dealing with the issue of treason and any other issue. I am sure that the institution of the House will look after him in that regard.
I value the opportunity to speak in the debate. Many hon. Members want to speak; these occasions are useful as they enable us to raise matters of concern to us, to the House and to our constituents. I want to raise a matter that concerns my constituency: agriculture and the beef industry. Leominster, in the county of Hereford, has 700 sq miles of rural land with two and a half traffic lights. When I became its Member of Parliament 24 years ago it had no traffic lights.
In my last speech on the beef industry and agriculture in May 1996—a little more than a year ago—I made two relevant points that I want to repeat now. The first—then, it was almost a plea—was that the BSE crisis should not result in what I called Euro-bashing. It seemed to me that if we depended on an institution such as the EU to get out of a crisis, there was no point in attacking it, let alone not getting on with it. In that regard, I commend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who took that point straight away and worked hard to improve relations, which is particularly relevant to making progress in this matter.
The second point, which in general terms the House has observed, is that there is no necessity for undue party politics on the BSE issue and getting the ban lifted. Controversial points will occasionally be made on behalf of beef producers about this subsidy or that support, but in general we are all in the same boat. We must do the best for our farmers and the best to get the ban lifted. The way to do that is, first, to get on with Europe and, secondly, to recognise that the United Kingdom exacerbated, by its BSE crisis and the press reaction to it, a deeper problem which goes beyond BSE—the consumption of red meat in general and beef in particular. All of us, including our farmers, must acknowledge that European beef producers and the EU market as a whole are, if anything, in a worse state than ours.
Addressing the main problem, I shall make four fairly succinct points. First, the problem goes beyond BSE: we are dealing with declining consumption of red meat. That goes right across the EU. I am happy to say that Britain is better than most in that regard. For example, we are dealing with the decline of the family meal—the great Sunday lunch that I continue to enjoy. Good British beef will always sit on the Temple-Morris table, but it will not sit on every table. We are dealing here, I shudder to say, with convenience foods as much as with beef. We are dealing with chicken meat, associated flavourings and all the rest that is found on the sad gastronomic path down which all too many people across Europe appear to have been tempted.
Secondly, we have a problem that is familiar to the agriculture industry—overproduction and structural surplus. An appalling problem is building up. EU intervention stocks of beef, including ours, could reach no less than 2 million tonnes by 2001 and 4 million tonnes by 2006.

283
Thirdly, we have the continuation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade reforms and the resulting progressive squeeze on subsidised exports to the third world and other countries.
Fourthly, we have increasing national and EU financial constraints on subsidies to farmers allied to the major question of the reform of the CAP and the overall financial priorities of the EU, not least when it is concerned with enlargement.
I can make my next four points briefly because an Adjournment debate is coming up later in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will raise them and an Agriculture Minister will deal with them—no doubt much to the relief of the Leader of the House who has quite enough on her plate already.
First, I welcome the Europewide scheme we have succeeded in obtaining for the removal of the specified risk materials from beef, which means that we can control imports. They have been coming in at the rate of 160,000 tonnes a year, which will have an effect on market prices, not least for the farmer.
Secondly, domestic consumption is up. We have made a remarkably good recovery and I believe that we are almost up to pre-BSE levels.
Thirdly, I welcome, as I am sure will all hon. Members, the decision by McDonald's and Burger King once again to take British beef. I wish that it had come sooner, but at least it has come now.
Fourthly, I welcome the advances that have been made in getting the traceability scheme up and running. I was encouraged by a recent Government statement that we can expect that as a reality by early 1998—the sooner the better, but we need to make progress on the exemption from the ban of certified herds. That is the vital area. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) did a great deal of work on the matter and he knows its importance. We need to obtain a progressive lifting of the ban. To get the ball rolling, I stress that it is vital that we concentrate on the certified herds, but we must also settle the overall direction of policy towards the industry, making it more competitive and less subsidised.
One central point as, inevitably, we go down the competitive and less subsidised path is that we must give farmers time to adapt along the way. Too quick a change could spell disaster for the countryside. There is a future for the British beef industry. The industry accepts that there will be change, but it needs to be given a firm direction and sufficient direction to have confidence in its future.
11.36 am
Mr. Martin Caton: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall), for Burton (Mrs. Dean) for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). All showed a tremendous commitment to the constituencies that they now represent and a determination to fight for their constituents. I look forward to working in partnership with them in the years ahead.
I was keen to speak today because I want to help to correct the impression beginning to be created—partly, I am afraid, by those on the Labour Benches—that the
284
Labour party in Wales is seriously divided on the Government's plans to create a Welsh Assembly. If all the Labour Members of Parliament from Wales who oppose democratic devolution and all those with serious reservations about specific parts of the policy are combined, they total just six—six out of 34—and only half that number are totally opposed to the creation of a Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in 1979, only six Labour Members of Parliament were opposed to devolution and the Welsh people voted four to one against devolution?
Mr. Caton: The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point. The great difference between 1979 and now is the attitude of the Labour movement in Wales. It is fair to say that, in 1979, the movement was split from top to bottom; it was seriously divided. That does not happen now, because the policy that has been spelt out in the White Paper is not the product of civil servants in Gwydyr house or Cathays park; it is the product of the Labour party in Wales. It is itself a product of real devolution.
We, the people of Wales, involved in the Labour party, developed that policy through our policy commission, our conferences and in consultation with the people of Wales. We came to that policy, we put it to the people on 1 May and they voted for it. That is why we do not have the same situation that we had in 1979.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. In 1979, almost a majority of Welsh Members of Parliament were opposed to devolution, because in those days there were Conservative Members in Wales. The position now is that, out of 40 Welsh Members of Parliament, only three will vote against, three are lukewarm and 34 will campaign enthusiastically for the thrilling Welsh Assembly that we are about to create.
Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for making those valuable points.
I have listened carefully to the arguments against the proposals in "A Voice for Wales" that have been made in the House and outside it. Opponents of a Welsh Assembly fall into three broad camps: the myopic utopians, the "what-if-ers" and the Chicken Licken tendency, although some people are clearly in more than one of those camps.
Myopic utopians apparently believe that we live in the most perfect of all possible constitutions, and that our existing structure of government cannot be improved in any way. They are completely blind to the glaring democratic deficit that now exists in the governance of Wales. They point to the Public Accounts Select Committee, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the Welsh Grand Committee and Welsh Question Time and they ask, "Is that not accountability enough for you?" Frankly, the answer is no. As valuable as those democratic vehicles were and are, they have not and could not properly and fully scrutinise the work of the Welsh Office and the public bodies in Wales or provide policy initiatives in all areas of their responsibility.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I have seen

285
a deterioration in the scrutiny of the Welsh Office during the 20 years that I have been in the House. Does he agree that one of the ways in which the system is breaking down is that, at Welsh Question Time, non-Welsh Members table questions and thereby dictate the agenda? Welsh Members need to ask questions of Welsh Office Ministers on many subjects, but we cannot do so because we are unable to get on the list for questions.
Mr. Caton: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have been in the House a far shorter time than he, but even in that short time I, as a representative of Wales, have felt that same frustration at not being able to hold our Executive accountable. I certainly agree with his point. Decisions on how £7 billion of spending by the Welsh Office is allocated should be made by directly elected representatives of all the people living in Wales. It is as simple and as straightforward as that.
The "what-if-ers" are another kettle of fish. They fear what the Assembly might do. What if its south Wales members get together and distort allocation of resources? What if its north Wales members get together and get excessive attention given to the Welsh language? What if it ends up full of retired councillors who starve the health service so as to put money into local authorities? What if, what if, what if! I think that the Assembly will behave fairly and rationally, and will be encouraged to do so by the structures and approach outlined in the White Paper.
If we are honest, we have to admit that democracy does not guarantee good government. If we did not know that before, we learned it in the 18 years to 1 May. Democracy does not guarantee good government, but it provides the best chance of good government. If I had to make a choice between leaving decisions about the future of Wales to a Secretary of State who, as we have seen, may have no connection with Wales and an Assembly directly elected by the Welsh people, I know which I would choose, and which is more likely to make the right decisions for the whole of Wales.
The third category of opponents is the Chicken Licken tendency, and that is where the official Opposition seem to position themselves. Hon. Members will remember that an acorn fell on Chicken Licken's head and she told everyone that the sky was falling in. This time the acorn of accountability has fallen on the head of Quibble Ribble, and he is running about, saying, "Not only is the sky coming down, but the country is falling apart. Oh dear, oh dear."
The Opposition claim that the creation of a Welsh Assembly threatens the future of the United Kingdom, and that it is the first step on the road to secession. That analysis of the facts is as distorted as Chicken Licken's explanation of her sore head; it is ludicrous. The White Paper makes it clear that we are talking not about devolving more power to Wales and the Welsh Office from Westminster or Whitehall, but about democratising the considerable powers that have already been transferred.
It is difficult to understand how anyone who believes in democracy can oppose this measure. Everyone seems to accept the need for a different approach to government in Wales. I did not see one manifesto or election address from any party or individual campaigning in Wales that called for the closure of the Welsh Office or even a reduction in its powers. We can only assume that there is common ground on devolution: it is democracy that is in dispute.
286
To be honest, I understand the logic of the argument for not having a Secretary of State and for bringing public services in Wales under the relevant English Ministries. I would oppose that, but I would understand it because it would be a way of creating a direct, democratic pathway of accountability. What is more difficult to comprehend is the position that recognises the need for devolved Welsh government but denies the demand that it be made directly and democratically accountable to the people of Wales. In my opinion, that denial is more likely to undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Like many of my colleagues, this summer I shall engage with the myopic utopians, the "what-if-ers" and the Chicken Lickens in what I hope will be a friendly debate about the future of Wales, but I hope to spend more time talking to the people in my constituency and in other parts of Wales. They know that the structure of Welsh government has not delivered the goods for them, and I shall urge them to use their vote for change on 18 September, so that it can in the future.
11.46 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about a report in The Sunday Times that the Labour Government propose to pour tonnes of concrete over the countryside in England, Wales, Scotland and, I assume, Northern Ireland to provide more homes. I shall make only a short contribution, because many hon. Members want to participate in the debate.
I speak on behalf of not only the United Kingdom as a whole, but my constituency of Ribble Valley, 75 per cent. of which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. In maiden speeches this morning, hon. Members have spoken at length about the beauty of their constituencies. I speak with emotion about the beauty of my constituency. It is beautiful and I wish it to remain so. The last thing that I want is a change in Government policy that will result in thousands of homes being built on green-field sites in my constituency.
William Blake's "Jerusalem" talks of those feet in ancient times that walked upon England's pastures green. That may well have been written about the Ribble valley. In 20 years' time, it may have to be rewritten to talk of those feet in modern times that walk upon England's built-up areas and industrial estates. That does not have quite the same ring, does it? I hope that the Leader of the House will refute the plans for extra homes that were mentioned in The Sunday Times.
We have heard that 2 million extra homes may be built in the countryside. That would be a complete nightmare. The Council for the Protection of Rural England says that a quarter of a million acres of countryside are flooded by concrete every year. That is a dramatic figure, and it would be appalling if it were to be increased. Imagine how much worse it would be if Labour allowed building on green-field sites throughout the country. I do not dispute the fact that additional housing is required, but I take issue with the plans that were reported in The Sunday Times this weekend. Once again, the Labour party has proved that it does not understand the countryside and hates the rural way of life.
The comments of the Minister for London and Construction betrayed the Government's commitment to green politics. The Prime Minister's words about his commitment to the Rio declaration and to the environment can be put to one side if these plans go ahead.

287
There are many small villages in my constituency. The NIMBY factor—"not in my backyard"—is not involved, because small villages, such as Ribchester, have already given way to extra houses. Two hundred houses were built at Barrow, Longridge has had extra homes and quite a number of houses have been built in the small market town of Clitheroe. There are also extra houses in Sawley and Fulwood, which is in the urban part of my constituency, in Preston. As its name suggests, Fulwood was once a wood, but now it is just full. Only about four green plots of land are available, and already the developers want to build on them.
Another problem—which is not unique to the Ribble valley—is caused by the sites of old psychiatric hospitals, although I do not think that anyone has a problem with the idea of building on the "footprints" of those old hospitals. There are three such sites in my constituency, and permission has been given for the building of about 450 houses on one of them. At least 150 houses will be built on the second site, and an application has been made to build several hundred on the third. If the developments go ahead, they will affect nearby villages dramatically, altering their character.
Developers talk about planning gain, saying that, if they are given the opportunity to build all those extra houses, the infrastructure will be improved. Perhaps there will be another school, a better bus service and a chemist. People who move into small villages, however, do so for specific reasons. They enjoy the countryside and the quiet; there seems to be less lawlessness in rural areas than in urban areas. The planning gain lies in the fact that there are not all those extra houses. We should take that into account before developing more land.
There is also the problem of transport. If we build more houses in the countryside, more roads will be needed to meet the demand that will be caused by all the extra cars. People want to live in the countryside because of the quiet, and people want to visit it for the same reason. The last thing that such people want is to see not only 2 million extra houses but millions of extra cars clogging up our countryside.
Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world. Last year, more than 24 million tourists came to this country from abroad. Many did not just visit London, but went into the countryside to see our small villages and enjoy the beauty of, for instance, small rural churches. Surely the last thing that we want to do is turn our green fields into one massive building site. People will not wish to come here from abroad to visit one large building site. We are in danger of creating millions of new Swampys who will fight the proposals throughout the country, not just in certain parts of it. What about all the derelict houses in big cities such as Manchester and Liverpool? Thousands of houses are empty, for whatever reason, regardless of whether they are controlled privately or by local authorities. All those houses must be brought into use.
I spent 30 years living above a shop in Swansea. There are still many vacant properties over shops in cities and towns. Let us bring all those properties into use before we start turning our green-field sites into yet more housing estates.
288
There are two more problems in the countryside. I refer to telecommunications masts, the subject of which has been raised before on the Adjournment, and wind turbines, about which I myself have spoken on the Adjournment. We must give more regard to the countryside. It is not just an asset for us to enjoy; it is an asset which we must preserve for countless generations to enjoy in the future. I hope that the Government will give us some reassurances today.
11.53 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: The beauty of listening to debates such as this is that we learn things from other hon. Members. Sometimes, we can convey what we have learnt to constituents who come to us with problems. For instance, I have learnt from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) where the lantern is that was snatched from Guy Fawkes. When some primary schoolchildren wrote to me about Guy Fawkes, I had to do some research in order to answer their questions, but I was unable to answer one question: what had happened to the lantern? Now, however, I can respond to the children of Renishaw primary school.
I have learnt many other things during today's debate. I did not know, for example, that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) had fought Nicholas Bennett at the last general election. That reminded me of a debate that took place here one Friday. Before the Jopling reforms, we used to be able to put in for the chance to lead debates on various motions. One such debate was led by Neil Hamilton, and was entitled "The future of socialism". It was the first occasion on which there had been a solid debate in the House about socialism as a general theory since the days of Philip Snowden. Finally, Nicholas Bennett raised a point of order, because I had been talking for even longer than my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West—partly to prevent Nicholas Bennett from speaking. The debate was largely taken over by Labour Members, particularly members of the socialist Campaign group.
We should have more opportunities to engage in debates of that kind. We should not have to depend on Front Benchers or on Opposition days. Neil Hamilton did the House a valuable service that day.
Hon. Members have raised questions relating to the future of democracy, and I think that it would be useful to have a debate on that. Democratic socialists are interested in that subject: it is part of their socialist vision. Let me develop one or two of the views that have been expressed today. Unfortunately, it is not easy to deal with such big issues in a short speech; we really need a fuller debate.
One massive problem affecting democracy is the European Union. I am not opposed to the European Union itself, but I feel that it should be reformed and developed. It is clearly a bureaucratic, centralising structure, with much of its power and authority derived from "creeping competences". An interesting report on road safety produced by the Select Committee on European Legislation illustrates the division and transfer of power between our Parliament and the European Union. The report shows how power slips from the national parliament to the European Union, and is relevant to many issues besides road safety.

289
Ultimately, the Council of Ministers—which is still far too secretive—makes decisions over the heads of the national parliaments. Its members do deals among themselves. Our ability to scrutinise the measures that result from those decisions is limited. We should extend the work of the Standing Committees that examine European legislation, and extend the authority of the Select Committee, which does valiant work in difficult circumstances.
It is claimed that the European Union has been opened up and that there is more transparency—that we can see what goes on in meetings of the Council of Ministers, and obtain a few details about voting. That has not been done very effectively, however. The much-vaunted principle of subsidiarity, which holds that legislation should be dealt with at national level wherever possible, has no significant legal import. It is inadequate in terms of explaining who does what and showing national authority. A much more sensible way of achieving that would be a system of clear division and an overall constitution. Such a structure would be federalist, but it does not have to be centralised: arrangements could be drafted to avoid that.
We must grasp the fact that democracy is slipping away from us towards Europe and that many important decisions are made without parliamentary checks and balances. All power should go to parliaments—the European Parliament dealing with European matters and national parliaments dealing with the business that is appropriate to nation states. Many actions need to be taken to advance the powers of parliaments in relation to the Executives. European matters should be decided by the European Parliament, which should not be a mere consultative assembly. There have been nudges towards improving matters, but we are still far short of what is required.
I should like to see a fully fledged, federal, social and democratic Europe. It is only when people have the vote to appoint representatives and, therefore, the power to control and check them that they get the actions that are important to them. That is how the House developed provisions such as the welfare state. The franchise and, therefore, democracy were fully extended, but current arrangements are allowing many such advances to slip away.
Our democracy has many shortcomings and we need to put our own house in order. Some hon. Members spoke about that when discussing Wales and Scotland. Some of our actions have allowed the franchise to slip away. Many people are missing from the electoral register and we need an up-to-date, modern system that will bring about a full franchise—for example, homeless people should be placed on the electoral register.
Parliament must be jealous of the operation of its powers. Labour Members are moving into a new situation and, as it develops, Back Benchers will start to flex their muscles and prod the Executive a bit more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have some sympathy with Opposition conclusions, but not with the way in which they put their arguments. When I was in opposition, I observed some hypocrisy in government.
There should be more statements in the House and we should be careful about the operation of guillotines. The procedure should be structured and they should not imposed before there has been proper debate. We should not encourage non-question times, by which I mean
290
underarm bowling to elicit predetermined answers. However, that is not new: it happened under the Conservative Government. Labour Back Benchers should not be too soft on the Government; nor should we be hard on them all the time, looking them in the eye and sticking them with an issue, as we did when we were in opposition. We must be much more sophisticated in pushing our concerns and getting Executive answers. We must remember that we are elected to serve our constituents.
Much more needs to be done in the democratic game. Much has been said about local government having adequate finances. Altering the standard spending assessment formula would confer a massive advantage in that respect. Ian Mikardo was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West who also spoke about world government. A democratic structure within the European Union could be a framework for extension and development. One of the world's problems is the unanswerable power of capitalism in multinational companies whose operations cross many boundaries. We need political frameworks that will counter such powers.
We should think about the great democratic task in which we often fail to get involved. It is as if we have been through the franchise struggles of the 19th and early 20th centuries and think that we have sorted out the basics of democracy and need to attend to only a few changes here and there. We need to work at democracy all the time, or it will slip away unnoticed. Fresh forms of bureaucracy and dictatorship and other sorts of control may seep into political systems unless we keep a continual eye on the game.
12.6 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), in his inimitable way, has taken us from European federalism to world government in about 10 minutes. He made a robust speech in which he dared to mention socialism, for which he deserves the thanks and congratulations of us all. The four hon. Members who deserve special congratulations are those who made their maiden speeches.
This debate, which has been slightly changed by Jopling, originally took place over three hours before each recess to discuss why the House should not adjourn. Hon. Members would give reasons for special debates and say why the House should not adjourn until those debates had taken place. So many topics have been aired this morning in 13 diverse and interesting speeches that the House would sit almost until 27 October if the Leader of the House acceded to all the requests. I shall not endorse such requests and I hope that the right hon. Lady will allow us to go tomorrow after a fairly exhausting time in recent months.
I return to the four maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) made a brave plea for the name of his constituency to be changed. No doubt those who deliberate on such matters will note what he said because he made a strong, if not an unanswerable, case. The hon. Gentleman paid a gracious tribute to his predecessor, Sir Trevor Skeet, and we are grateful to him for that because Sir Trevor endeared himself to hon. Members throughout the House. He was first elected to the House in 1959 and therefore had a long parliamentary pedigree. The hon. Member for Bedford also said how concerned

291
he was about the workings of the Child Support Agency. That concern is shared and has been voiced in all parts of the House for a considerable time.
We heard an interesting historical maiden speech, entirely non-controversial, from the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean), a fellow Staffordshire Member. She talked with understandable pride about the brewing industry and with equally understandable pride about Uttoxeter race course. She also mentioned the marathon speech-making abilities of her predecessor, Sir Ivan Lawrence, who is much missed on the Conservative Benches and who rendered the House a signal service by the way in which he chaired the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
Listening to the maiden speech by the hon. Member for the new constituency of Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin), I wondered as I heard those rich Scottish tones whether, if and when the Scottish Parliament is established, so many English constituency associations will be willing to make the wise decision that his obviously did and choose a Scottish representative.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the gunpowder plot and the lantern, and we heard about the mutiny on the Bounty too. His speech was a veritable tour de force. He also made proper reference to his predecessor for part of the constituency, "Gentleman Jim" Callaghan—"Little Jim" as he called him. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the important links between local and central government. I shall not follow his slightly more provocative remarks, but most of his speech was certainly in the tradition of non-controversial maiden speeches.
I am not entirely sure that I can say the same about the longest of the maiden speeches that we heard this morning, by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). As I listened to him, I could not help but recall the fact that I had the singular distinction of having to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on his maiden speech. I remember, way back in 1970, saying that I rather thought that the House might hear from him again. I suspect that the House will also hear quite a lot from the hon. Member for Reading, West, and I am sure that even if we do not agree with it we shall be entertained, and sometimes perhaps provoked, by it.
The hon. Gentleman paid a generous tribute to Sir Anthony Durant, for which we are grateful. He is a most convivial man, as the hon. Gentleman said, and he was always a redoubtable spokesman for his constituency of Reading, for which he had an enormous affection—an affection clearly shared by the hon. Gentleman who now represents that seat.
I was a little concerned by the fact that after only three months here the hon. Gentleman wants to modernise the entire system. I sometimes say to new colleagues that one must not assume that everything that was done before was decided by imbeciles or that things have evolved for no specific reason. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will become absorbed into our ways to some degree and will make a positive contribution to our debates.
We heard several other interesting speeches, including the unusual novelty, in such debates, of a speech from the Front Bench, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who made what I am sure the Leader of the House will agree
292
was an admirably brief speech about the Government's desire to have an ethical foreign policy. We would all entirely endorse that desire, of course, but my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out some of the contradictions that have been evident in statements emanating from the Foreign Office in recent weeks. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take an early opportunity to enlighten the House and share with us some of his detailed thoughts on a range of complex issues.
It is wonderful the way in which such debates vary from the great and global to the local. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) very properly took the opportunity to make a plea for his local hospital, the St. Helier hospital in Carshalton. I understand from the hon. Gentleman that the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), was born in that hospital, so that is an added reason why what the hon. Gentleman said should be taken carefully into account by the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) deserted, for once, his campaign directed at the Child Support Agency—a campaign for which we all pay him tribute. Today, he made a powerful speech in favour of an energy policy, which illustrated how important it is that the House should not neglect the coal industry. As one who represents a constituency that has seen its coal mines close, I have some fellow feeling with what the hon. Gentleman said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) also spoke. Despite the request by the Leader of the House, I shall not touch on the point about submarines but will leave it for her to deal with. My hon. Friend made an important speech, drawing on his considerable knowledge as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which deals with delegated legislation.
My hon. Friend talked in particular about the implications of devolution. If we have a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, how will secondary legislation be dealt with? What will be the intricate relations with the House of Commons? That is an important subject which deserves careful and detailed consideration and a most careful answer.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) talked about the report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. I echo his genuine tribute to the Leader of the House, who has chaired that Committee with exemplary skill and impartiality. I also echo his wish that all members of the present Government would take a leaf out of the right hon. Lady's book and behave towards the House with a respect that, while never veering into subservience, shows a true respect for its position and its traditions, and that they would not bypass the House when making announcements. The right hon. Lady may be too modest to talk to her colleagues about that, but I hope that her colleagues will take what has been said carefully to heart.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) talked about the beef industry, and made a strong plea, which I second, for the continuation of the Sunday lunch.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) talked about utopia as though we believed that utopia existed now. I remind him that it was a fantasy that existed in the mind

293
of a great man. With the hon. Gentleman's views on devolution, I think that he is conjuring up a fantasy utopia of his own that will not come to pass.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made an eloquent Welsh plea for the maintenance of the green belt and the green and pleasant land that so many parts of this country still are. I am sure that that struck a responsive chord with most of us.
We have had a wide-ranging and diverse debate, as we usually do on such occasions. The summer Adjournment debates constitute one of the traditions of the House with which no Modernisation Committee should wish to tamper. It is important that, from time to time, Members should have such open sessions, to which they can come and air their views, and indeed their prejudices, and make pleas for local causes and express their concern about national causes.
Such debates are always difficult for any Leader of the House to sum up. Having taken part in them from the Back Benches many times, I am well aware of that. I am finishing my speech at the precise time that I promised to, so I hope that in her response the right hon. Lady will be able to make at least some reference to the Modernisation Committee, as well as to the speeches that have been made.
12.17 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): As usual in a summer Adjournment debate, we have had a wide range of contributions, with many hon. Members wishing to participate. Many have sat here throughout the debate, some of them without having had the opportunity to speak. That proves that there is a need for such debates.
I will try to deal with as many as possible of the points that have been raised, especially those raised by Members who have been in the Chamber throughout. If I miss anything, I will either write to hon. Members or arrange for colleagues to do so.
I shall start by mentioning the maiden speeches that have been made today. They have all been different in terms of style and content, but they have proved to those of us who have been in the House for some time that the quality of the new Members elected at the recent general election is very high.
The confidence of new Members seems to increase with each intake. I well remember my maiden speech, and also my second "maiden" speech, if I may use that term, in 1987. In those days, people did not approach maiden speeches with such confidence, and I congratulate the Members who after such a short time in the House have managed to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) clearly has used the last three months well to assess the issues of main concern to his constituents. He highlighted one problem area which all of us would echo—the problems of those facing difficulty with the Child Support Agency. We all agree on that matter, and the Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons—to which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) referred—has often used the CSA as an example of where Parliament could have done a better job had we approached our work differently. We all need to learn from such problems and examples, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising it.
294
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) gave us a treat when describing her constituency. I could see hon. Members' ears prick up when she mentioned that her constituency included four breweries and one race course, and she invited everybody there for the recess. She may have many takers. She caused a great deal of relief by saying that she would not speaking for as long as her predecessor, and I am sure that she will get other opportunities to catch the Speaker's eye because of her brevity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) inherited the seat of a close friend of mine, Jim Callaghan, who came to this House on the same day as I did many years ago. My hon. Friend raised important constituency interests, particularly the relationship between local and central Government. We must all be conscious of the tensions in that relationship and encourage people to work together. He also mentioned the need for democratic renewal, a theme which was picked up by several hon. Members. I shall return to that matter at the end of my remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) was, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, more controversial in some of his remarks, although not in terms of his praise for his predecessor, Sir Anthony Durant. My hon. Friend proved that he is as sociable and convivial as his predecessor and that he is willing to talk to Members on both sides of the House. That should stand him in good stead. He may not wish to be told this, but he reminded me of one of the highlights of recent years—the Reading versus Bolton Wanderers match. I was on the other side from my hon. Friend, and I thought that that most extraordinary match ended satisfactorily, although I am afraid that my hon. Friend may not agree.
I can agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West about renewing democracy, and the Modernisation Committee has taken many matters on board. He talked about the conduct of debates in this House, and the Committee agreed that that item would be a part of our inquiries later in the year. We will report in due course.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) raised the issue of vitamin B6, and we have all received letters on that topic. He suggested that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, might not understand the pressures attached to the issue. My hon. Friend has a good reputation for listening to people and for taking all evidence on board, and he will do that when answering the representations made to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) raised an issue that he has raised on more than one occasion at business questions—energy policy—and referred specifically to German coal subsidies. I hope that he will not mind if I write to him in greater detail on this issue, which causes some concerns. The Government are pursuing with the Commission and the German Government subsidies given to German coal producers. My hon. Friend has a long-term interest in coal which comes from his background and that of his constituency. He shares some of my concerns about opencast mining, which may threaten both our constituencies.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) mentioned an issue that he has raised on one or two occasions in this House—St. Helier hospital.

295
He has had correspondence with me on that topic, and he asked me to convey his grave concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and I shall do so. The Government recognise that there are difficulties. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of all the recent developments, but I will make sure that my right hon. Friend updates him in the next week or two.
Other issues were mentioned, including the Welsh Assembly. It is useful to have a debate such as this so that anybody who could not take part in earlier debates—such as Friday's—can come here and speak today. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) raised interesting questions about house building and putting concrete across our countryside, as he put it. We all have concerns about how we balance the need to build more houses and the need to protect the countryside, but he did not have to include political gibes. Basically, the Conservative Government faced exactly the same problems and we are restating the targets adopted by that Government. There are genuine problems and I should have thought that a genuine discussion across the Floor would be better than scoring political points.
I apologise to anyone whose points I have not mentioned, but I wish to use my final few minutes to refer to our democracy and, in particular, to our parliamentary procedures. This issue was raised by Members on both sides, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) put it in a wider context. Other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, mentioned it as well.
The hon. Member for Bosworth, who has a particular interest in statutory instruments, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who has great experience as a member of the Modernisation Committee and of the Procedure Committee, and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire will all be aware that we published the first reports of the Modernisation Committee yesterday. That is a useful step forward, but we would not want our recommendations to be the be-all and end-all of
296
parliamentary reform or modernisation. Modernisation of the House is a process, not an event. It is continuing, and we have made constructive suggestions, some of which the right hon. Member for East Devon outlined.
The Committee has made practical suggestions—such as changing the Order Paper—which prove our sound intentions to tackle some of the problems that have been around for a long time but which may not have been taken on board. There is a genuine mood in the House of Commons that we need a change in the way in which we operate. It is important that we keep the best of our traditions in terms of genuine debate, the established principle of holding the Government to account and making sure that legislation is properly scrutinised, but there is great scope for improving the way in which we operate. Our objective as a Committee has been to try to make suggestions to improve legislation and to make better use of the time of hon. Members. In other words, we want to make Parliament more effective but also more efficient. Our proposals are a part of the way to do so.
I understand that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire has had to be discharged from the Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons so that he can serve on another Committee. I must take this opportunity to thank him for the work that he did on the Committee. It may come as a surprise—to outsiders at least—to know that the work of that Committee was constructive and positive on both sides. There was not a straightforward party divide, which is the normal impression people have of everything that goes on in the House. If people of different political parties agree, they should say so. Just as we say so when we disagree. If we could get over that basic principle, we would make progress and move forward.
This has been an important debate. The right hon. Member for East Devon asked about the Modernisation Committee report and I can assure him that we will have an early debate on it—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now come to the next debate.

Sprinkler Systems (Superstores)
12.30 pm
Ms Tess Kingham: I am grateful to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a subject on which I feel strongly and which has directly affected people in my constituency—the fire safety of supermarkets and superstores and whether it should be compulsory for them to install fire sprinkler systems.
I am privileged to represent Gloucester—a fine city which has undergone many changes in its history. Just this year, we are celebrating the 900th anniversary of Glevum, the Roman colonia set up where present-day Gloucester now stands. Every year, we host thousands of visitors who come to admire Gloucester's heritage—our wonderful Norman cathedral, the refurbished Victorian docks and the best-preserved friary in England, the Blackfriars friary, to name just a few of our attractions.
Gloucester is not merely a tourist attraction; it is a thriving working city. It was traditionally known for railway carriage and aircraft manufacturing but today, because of our strategic location and good communications and, of course, our wonderful people, we are managing to attract businesses from all over the world to relocate to our fine city. In recent years, we have benefited in particular from the relocation of financial institutions and a good deal of light industry.
Gloucester is also similar to any other major town and city in Britain today in that we have a plethora of new superstores blooming along our trunk roads. They are welcome because they contribute to the local economy and provide jobs, but the fire safety of those superstores and supermarkets concerns me, and that is the reason for today's debate.
In May last year, a major fire broke out at the MFI superstore on Eastern avenue in Gloucester. The building was not fitted with a fire sprinkler system. The fire soon got out of control and engulfed the building. It took 100 firefighters and 15 pumps working throughout the night to control that blaze. Luckily, no one was injured, but the cost was high. More than £5 million worth of damage was done to the building and stock and there was major pollution of the environment in the neighbouring area, damage to neighbouring superstores and a considerable cost to the public purse for the rescue operation.
At that time, I was the prospective parliamentary candidate in Gloucester. I was shocked to discover that it is not compulsory for supermarkets and superstores to install sprinkler systems when they are built. Along with other members of the public, I had assumed that such action would be a matter of course. Under current legislation—British standard 5588, part 2, 1985—fire sprinkler systems are merely recommended.
Since being elected, I have looked into the issue in some detail and I am firmly of the belief that it should be compulsory for sprinkler systems to be installed in all new, warehouse-style, single-storey buildings over 2,000 sq m used for commercial purposes. That definition would encompass the majority of new superstores and if that proposal were implemented, it could help to avert future disasters and potential loss of life.
The arguments for making sprinkler systems compulsory are compelling. First, all evidence shows that sprinkler systems work. Statistics from Australia,
298
New Zealand, the United States of America and the United Kingdom show that sprinkler systems, if they are properly maintained and operational, will control between 95 and 99 per cent. of all fires in the early stages. That is because they are area specific. That means that sprinklers are activated only in the immediate area of the fire, thus attacking the seat of the fire before it has a chance to take hold. If sprinklers are not in use and a fire takes hold, it spreads in area and intensity in between 10 and 20 minutes and becomes what is termed a fully developed fire. At that point, the fire is much more difficult to control and usually requires a full-scale rescue operation of the type that we witnessed at MFI in Gloucester.
Fully developed fires are dangerous and devastating. The lives of firefighters who may have to enter and search unsafe buildings for unaccounted people are put at considerable risk. The main causes of injury and death to firefighters in Britain are flashovers and roof collapses. Those occur in fully developed fires at very high temperatures—the very conditions that fire sprinkler systems are there to inhibit in the first place.
In February 1996, a 21-year-old firefighter, Fleur Lombard, was tragically killed by a flashover when she was fighting a supermarket blaze in Bristol. Fleur's father has been a leading campaigner, calling for compulsory sprinkler systems in superstores. In 1993, two firefighters died when a roof collapsed and, in Dover in 1995, four firefighters were injured in a flashover in a major fire at a B and Q superstore. None of the buildings involved in those incidents had operational sprinkler systems. If they had, the fires could perhaps have been controlled at the early stages and might not have become fully developed fires and reached such an intensity as to become a danger to firefighters' lives.
Fully developed fires also cause environmental damage. Pollutants from burning buildings and materials can be carried by water from firefighters' hoses or expelled directly into the air. Waterborne pollutants from superstore blazes can include such unsavoury things as bleach, fertilisers, paints and dyes and those can accumulate in the soil or find their way into local water supplies. Air pollutants can include carbon monoxide, soot or hydrochloric acid in gaseous form when PVC is burnt.
A final consideration is the financial cost of not installing sprinklers, both to retailers and the public purse. Millions of pounds of retail stock are ruined every year when blazes get out of control and firefighters have no option but to deluge the whole area in tens of thousands of gallons of water. Sprinkler systems can limit that stock damage. They activate only in the immediate area of a fire, which means that, in comparison with the deluge from firefighters' hoses, little water is expelled in the vicinity of the fire and much less stock damage caused. Fire Protection Association statistics claim that five or fewer sprinkler heads extinguish 95 per cent. of all fires. Sprinkler systems are, therefore, cost-effective for retailers and also prevent the high public costs of full-scale rescue operations and all the accompanying paraphernalia that has to go with them.
There is widespread support for compulsory sprinkler systems in the type of buildings that I mentioned. The Loss Prevention Council, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and the Fire Brigades Union all support the proposal, as do the general public.

299
After the MFI fire in Gloucester, the Gloucester Citizen, our well-read daily newspaper, ran a lengthy campaign calling for the compulsory installation of sprinkler systems in superstores and supermarkets. The Gloucester people were asked to fill in a coupon and send it back to the newspaper and to their Member of Parliament. They responded enthusiastically, as I did when the matter was brought to my attention.
The campaign also received support from Douglas French, my predecessor, to whom I pay tribute. He faithfully served the city of Gloucester for 10 years and was well known for his willingness to speak out on any issue if he found it to be morally or politically incorrect, or where justice had not been done. He earned great respect in Gloucester. I did not always agree with him, but I admired his integrity and willingness to stand up and be counted.
At present, it is left to individual retailers to decide whether to be responsible and fit sprinkler systems. Some do it as a matter of course, and they should be congratulated; some learn by their mistakes: the new MFI building in Gloucester has sprinklers; but others refuse to fit them, no matter how much people urge and plead with them.
The new Sainsbury Homebase store, only a few hundred yards from MFI in Gloucester, has consistently refused to fit sprinkler systems. I received a letter from Sainsbury only today saying that it believed that its evacuation procedures and smoke alarms were sufficient. They may be sufficient for evacuating the mobile public, but they are certainly not sufficient to protect the lives of firefighters and save the public purse the considerable cost of rescue operations. Those are compelling arguments.
I hope that the Government will take decisive action and leave the superstores no hole to wriggle through in fire safety. The time has come for superstores to put people before profits: fire systems should be compulsory and installed as a matter of course.
12.40 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Kingham) on an excellent maiden speech. She has done all that hon. Members would expect from a maiden speaker: she paid a generous tribute to her predecessor, described the city that she represents in imaginative and attractive terms and, above all, highlighted a serious issue that deserves earnest consideration in the House and has a direct relevance to her constituency because of the fire to which she alluded, which was a traumatic episode in the life of the people of Gloucester.
The Government share my hon. Friend's concern about fires such as the one in Gloucester and the others to which she referred. It is obviously of particular concern when such incidents cause death or injury to firefighters. I shall say more about the Gloucester fire later, but, at this stage, I should like to express my sympathy, on behalf of the Government, to the relatives of all those firefighters who died in the fires to which my hon. Friend referred. We consider that to be a very serious issue, and it is extremely important that the Government should learn lessons from fires when they occur.
300
To that end, my Department has a contract with the fire research station, which is part of the Building Research Establishment, to investigate fires in buildings that could have implications for the building regulations. All the three fires to which my hon. Friend referred have been investigated and the issues discussed; for example, the use of sandwich panels is being considered.
The contract with the fire research station enables my Department to consider amendments to the building regulations that could have a bearing on life safety. I must stress at this point that building regulations are made primarily to ensure the health and safety of people in and around buildings, and are therefore not the right tool to deal with wider issues of environmental pollution and property protection. The health and safety of individuals is paramount, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would recognise that that is the right priority.
Guidance that would satisfy the fire aspects of the building regulations is given in approved document B on fire safety. The aim of the guidance is to ensure that buildings are safe while giving designers as much flexibility as possible. In the case of multi-storey retail buildings, the guidance suggests that floor area should be limited to 2,000 sq m in an unsprinklered building or 4,000 sq m in a building fitted with a sprinkler system.
It should therefore be clear that, in new multi-storey retail buildings, the floor area is not normally expected to exceed 4,000 sq m. Previous guidance to earlier building regulations suggested that the size limitation should be related to the volume of the space or compartment, but the current guidance takes account of research that suggested that fire loading was related more to floor area than to cubic measurements. In addition, adequate provision must be made for means of escape in the event of fire, regardless of whether the building is sprinklered.
The current guidance in the approved document suggests that single-storey retail buildings can be of unlimited extent without any sprinklers. A number of fires, such as the one in Gloucester, have occurred in single-storey retail units, and that aspect of the guidance has therefore been reviewed with the assistance of the fire research station, the fire advisory panel and the Building Regulations Advisory Committee.
The results of that work suggested that a case could be made for the installation of a sprinkler system in new single-storey retail buildings where the compartment exceeds 4,000 sq m. That is therefore one of the issues being considered as approved document B is redrafted for consultation. I have recently been in touch with the Home Office on the matter and I am keen that we make progress.
The delay in implementing changes has been caused partly by the lack of urgency accorded to the matter by the previous Administration and partly by the need to get together a comprehensive new package of guidance on fire safety. I am confident that we shall be able to start consultation in the very near future.
Proposed changes will reflect the need to consider the safety of both the occupants of the building and firefighters. Any change to the guidance is still expected to provide the designer with flexibility, giving the option either to compartmentalise the building to provide a physical barrier for fire containment, or to provide a sprinkler installation to control the spread of fire.
I understand that the Gloucester fire was caused by an arson attack during the night of 23 May and the early hours of 24 May last year. Fire was detected in pallets stored

301
immediately outside and adjacent to a large single-storey retail store. The store where the fire started has a floor area of almost 2,000 sq m and is part of a larger development that contains other retail units separated from each other by compartment walls. Fire brigade access to the site is described as good, with access on three sides of the store.
Under the building regulations, the external walls need not be provided with any fire resistance, because they are not classed as elements of structure; they do not support upper floors, as would likely have been the case had the building been multi-storey. The building was also sited far enough away from other buildings and the site boundary for the external walls not to have required fire resistance. Once the pallets had been ignited, the fire had ample opportunity to enter the building through the external walls.
Fire broke into the storage compartment of the building and spread among flat-pack furniture laid out on steel storage racking. There was no form of smoke venting or mechanism for heat release, and firefighters could enter the building only in the very early stages of the fire. The fire spread throughout the retail unit and affected a second smaller unit containing stored carpet rolls, because the compartment wall separating the units failed.
During the fire's development, and mainly owing to the new source of fuel in the carpet area, a thick blanket of black acrid smoke hung over the area. The fumes were thought to be a cocktail of noxious gases. The chief fire officer, environmental health officer and police considered at one stage evacuating the housing development immediately adjoining the site, but it was decided that occupants could remain if they closed all their windows.
The fire officer drew particular attention to the roof structure, which to some extent prevented firefighters from fighting the fire and effectively cooling down the compartment wall separating the units. That was particularly important if an attempt was to be made to prevent the fire from spreading between units.
Because of the temperature of the fire and the nature of the stored materials in the two units, there was clearly a possibility of environmental pollution, although, as I have explained, that is not dealt with under the building regulations. As regrettable as the incident was, I am relieved, as my hon. Friend was, that there was no loss of life or injuries. I have also noted that the units were unsprinklered.
Automatic sprinkler systems have amply demonstrated their effectiveness in preventing large fires and my Department, in conjunction with other Departments, is considering what steps can be taken to encourage more widespread use of sprinklers on a voluntary basis.
Modern sprinkler systems are engineered to the extent that the components are designed to cater for the needs of the insurance industry and can be costly to install. Many systems that protect buildings are hydraulically capable of supplying up to 18 sprinkler heads at any one time, whereas records show that, in most fires, no more than four sprinkler heads actually operate. My hon. Friend referred to an average of approximately five in any individual case. However, it is probable that even a small number of operating heads will be sufficient immediately to reduce the rate of spread of the fire and raise the alarm about the fire.
I understand the concerns of insurance companies and the issues relating to property protection although, as I said earlier, building regulations which deal with fire relate only to those issues that affect life safety. However,
302
the probability of a fire occurring at a time when the mains water supply has failed or when the mains electricity supply is not available is considered to be very small. We are, therefore, looking at ways in which the use of simpler, less costly sprinkler systems for life safety can be encouraged. A research project with the fire research station on sprinklers for life safety and means of escape is being undertaken for my Department to assist with that objective.
Research into a study of the interactions of sprinkler sprays with venting, and their combined effect on the fire gases in enclosures is also being undertaken by the fire research station on behalf of my Department. Another research project is intended to look at the relationship between sprinklers for life safety and means of escape. That will look at whether cheaper and simpler sprinkler systems are adequate for life safety rather than the more costly sprinklers installed for property protection. A study group will be set up to derive trade-off factors which compare the benefits of sprinklers with other fire protection measures such as travel distances and structural fire precautions.
It is also intended to develop mathematical models to assist with the decision making on the use of compensatory features relating to fire precautions in buildings. That will benefit both the occupants of the buildings from a safety point of view and designers with regard to flexibility. It should also help to make buildings cost-effective. Following from that research, there will also be an experimental study to provide better understanding of the interactions of the sprinkler sprays with venting and their effect on fire gases.
Human behaviour in fire is also an important issue, and a study on the impact of sprinkler systems on tenability limits will therefore look at the factors affecting smoke production and the effects of fire gases on human behaviour.
In the meantime, one further issue to which the new Government have given attention is the scope for local authorities to require enhanced fire precaution standards in advance of what would be necessary to comply with building regulations requirements. I was concerned to discover that when appeals were lodged against the exercise of such local discretion, it was routine practice under the previous Government to allow the appeal, therefore nullifying the effect of local discretion. I have stopped that practice and am now looking at all appeals on a case-by-case basis. That will, I believe, be welcome to local authorities which have, as my hon. Friend has highlighted, been frustrated by the inability to secure, in the past, compliance with their enhanced fire precaution requirements other than on the basis of voluntary agreement.
My hon. Friend will, I hope, appreciate from all of this that we fully recognise the importance of fire safety in buildings. Our research programme is designed to assist in the preparation of revised building regulations. I hope that we shall be able to go out to consultation in the next month or so on a revised version of approved document B. I can assure my hon. Friend that the revised text will deal with the issue of sprinklers in large single-storey retail buildings. Nevertheless, I and my officials will look again at the material that she has presented today. We are determined that effective measures must be in place to provide proper protection in the event of fire for all who could be affected, whether they are the individuals who use the store or firefighters trying to contain a fire.

Beef Industry
12.53 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I should like to preface my remarks by declaring a lifelong interest in the meat and livestock industry. I have no intention of saying anything in this debate that would justify scoring political points. For far too long, the food industry in general and the meat and livestock industry in particular has been used for political point-scoring. The House would do well to remember the devastating effect that that has had on the lives and livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of men and women employed in those industries.
As an earnest of my good intent, I shall start by giving credit where credit is due. I applaud the Government's efforts to achieve a ban on specified risk material in all European Union abattoirs. That is necessary if the European beef industry is to be an integral part of the single market established on 1 January 1996. Common sense decrees that, given that SRM is perceived to harbour the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent, it is right to ban SRM in all European abattoirs. That is a small but none the less welcome development. As that faint glimmer of light appears at the end of a long and dark tunnel, we should ask ourselves what lessons there are to be learnt for the future.
Never again must the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of Health precipitate the sort of food scares seen in 1988 about salmonella in eggs and, more recently, in 1996 about BSE. Nor must Ministers of the Crown allow themselves to be stampeded into making pronouncements and taking actions that are not only unsupported by the facts but at odds with practical experience and common sense.
The House will recognise both the events to which I have referred as having occurred under a Conservative Government, but my message to Ministers is that they could just as easily occur under a Labour Administration, given that the sources of the advice that they receive are unchanged and that the civil servants who give the advice are, by and large, the same people who advised the previous Government.
Ministers should be asking not what additional legislation is necessary but what is the source of their advice, what is the quality of the advice that they receive, and what was the end result of following that advice. They should ask those questions against the background of the holocaust in the animal kingdom that has occurred as a result of following advice. Some 3.7 million head of poultry were compulsorily destroyed between March 1989 and June 1996. More than 1.5 million cattle have been needlessly destroyed in the past 15 months. I say needlessly, because there was no realistic prospect that salmonella could be eradicated and there is no proof or evidence that BSE causes Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. We must learn from those experiences. We must learn to understand the dynamics of the rather new phenomenon, the scare. We must recognise the risk of falling into the trap of feeling that something must be done when, more often than not, that action simply serves to confirm people's worst fears. In short, the hazard is that control measures may simply exacerbate the problems and have the opposite effect to what was intended.
Before I turn my attention to the future, I wish to highlight some of the industry's current concerns. The first is the phasing out of the rendering subsidy, which
304
will make beef dearer—the opposite of what is needed in present circumstances. British beef will become even less competitive with foreign imports at a time when the strong pound is creating problems enough. In that regard, the whole farming industry looks to the Government to reconsider their decision on agrimonetary aids. The phasing out of aid to renderers will also drive producers and processors out of business, to the long-term detriment of the nation's balance of payments and the livestock industry's future prosperity. It will precipitate the demise of the knackermen—those unloved and, to the European Union, unwanted people who, along with hunt kennels, provide the livestock farmer with an outlet for fallen and casualty stock, which would otherwise be buried on farm, with all the hazards that that implies.
Secondly, farmers are concerned about the reduction in payments under the over-30-months scheme, not least the arbitrary decision to impose a 560 kg ceiling. It appears that that decision has been made for political reasons, given that there has been no consultation with the industry and that there is no statistical evidence to support that cut-off point.
Mr. Edward Garnier: On the subject of the OTMS, I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to a letter that a constituent of mine, Mr. John Wadland, received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), in reply to his letter to MAFF in which he set out his concerns as a beef farmer about the reduction in the compensation payment. In that reply, dated 22 July, the junior Minister said:
"With the greatest of respect I felt yours was a very silly letter. If you really feel that Dr. Cunningham"—
the Minister—
"who has represented beef and dairy farmers for decades in his rural constituency of Cumbria"—
his constituency is not Cumbria—
"does not understand the difference in a suckler herd and a dairy herd then you really need your head examining."
What hope do my farmers and my hon. Friend's farmers have when arrogant Ministers write such offensive, rude letters to farmers in trouble?
Mr. Gill: That is not the sort of letter that I would have written. I recall speaking in a debate in the previous Parliament on the subject of quality beef, when I was ruled out of order by the Chair for referring to suckler cows. We should take that lack of understanding of our industry seriously, because we have a lot of leeway to make up so that the public and, indeed, colleagues in the House of Commons understand what our industry entails.
On the subject of the OTMS, I am sure that my constituents would wish me to place on record the anger and frustration felt among Shropshire farmers. Incidentally, their cattle account for 5 per cent. of the nation's dairy herds and 4 per cent. of the nation's suckler herds. They are angry because there are no longer any abattoirs in the county contracted to handle OTMS stock.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that beef cattle in constituencies such as mine, which are effectively store cattle and are raised in open forest in the most ecological

305
conditions, are particularly penalised by the changes to the OTMS, when they are the least responsible for the BSE crisis?
Mr. Gill: I understand my hon. Friend's question. There is a good case for Ministers to look again at the OTMS, to see whether it could be converted into an over-36-months scheme. That would give a little more headroom for the type of cattle production that my hon. Friend described. Given that the limit of 30 months was set arbitrarily, I believe that there is no obstruction to raising it to 36 months. I hope very much that the Minister will consider that.
As I said, in Shropshire there are no longer any abattoirs contracted to deal with OTMS cattle. Will the Minister reconsider his decision not to award a contract to F. M. Caine and Sons Ltd. of Ludlow, which may prove to be the last straw for that knacker business? That would result in serious repercussions on an area that is highly dependent on livestock.
Thirdly, I wish to relay the concerns felt by many of my farming constituents that the calf processing aid scheme is now working against the economics of the beef industry by putting a false bottom in the market, which militates against cost cutting and low inputs as a means of producing a competitive product.
As for the future, let me say at the outset that there is a future for an industry that produces one of the finest and most natural food products in the world. That product contains high-quality protein, important vitamins and vital minerals, which, as any nutritionist worth his salt would tell us, are essential ingredients in a healthy, balanced diet.
As the House knows, the first priority is to get the beef export ban lifted. In that connection, I seek the Minister's confirmation that Her Majesty's Government will, forthwith, as a matter of urgency, put a firm proposal to Brussels that beef from cattle born after 1 August 1996 should be exempt from current restrictions.
The second priority must surely be to restructure drastically the beef regime, so that the industry takes the all-important decisions about what should be produced, in what quantities and to what standards of quality. Those decisions should seen to be quite separate from the ones that Governments may or may not wish to take in relation to the future well-being of the countryside.
The ruination of the beef industry, BSE and other scares apart, has been the dead hand of the common agricultural policy, which has skewed production to the continental pattern of beef production. In other words, no subsidies are paid in this country on beef from heifers, which was always an important source of quality beef on the British market. Even now, the Agenda 2000 proposals seek to take that a stage further, by creating even bigger incentives to produce bull beef as opposed to the traditional steer beef. In the past, so much of our quality beef has come from steer cattle.
The common agricultural policy has dictated quality standards by dint of the specifications for intervention, which in its turn has become, on occasion, a bigger and better customer than consumers. It has created the situation in which billions of taxpayers' money has been spent incentivising the production of a product that the
306
market either does not want or cannot cope with, at a price that consumers are reluctant to pay, as evidenced by the relatively static level of demand.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. As for the future, does he agree that it would be helpful towards meeting the pre-Florence conditions if, rather than moving to a part paper-based traceability system, which could only be bureaucratic and place a heavy burden on farmers, we moved to a computer-based system, and that we did so quickly?
Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend has raised a matter which is of concern to many of my farmers. The sooner we decide on the system that we intend to adopt to tag and identify animals, and move to it, the better. I am mindful of the fact, however, that there are extreme practical difficulties in ear-tagging animals. Although it is easy to do that in practice, in the weeks during which the cattle are grazing, tags are inevitably lost. There is then a huge problem in trying to trace which tag has been lost and its number, and replacing it. As an industry, we must consider other forms of identifying cattle, and certainly my right hon. Friend's suggestion is entirely sensible. I believe it to be the most practical, and I am sure that the Minister will note his suggestion.
The CAP beef regime has had most unfortunate consequences for British beef. When I spoke on "Farming Today", I was at pains to try—when the interviewer would allow me to get a word in edgeways—to explain that in the case of my family business, which runs an abattoir, we gave up the slaughter of cattle about 10 years ago. We did so not because of BSE, but simply because that commodity had become so political that I concluded that I was not clever enough to best-guess the decisions of the Intervention Board and all those people in Brussels who interfere so dramatically in the business.
We need to get away from all that and put the whole industry back in a position in which it can call the shots and decide on the quality and standards that will give the consumer a first-class product. I have no doubt that this country can produce better-quality beef than can any other country in Europe or, indeed, the world.
The system that I have just described provides a sharp contrast with how we did things 25 years ago, before we joined the Common Market. The old British deficiency payment scheme meant that farmers' incomes were maintained, consumers had the benefit of cheaper meat and ate more of it, taxpayers subsidised food production, to the benefit of non-taxpayers and people on low incomes, and food was used for its intended purpose: feeding hungry mouths, not creating wine lakes or beef and butter mountains, which ultimately have to be disposed of at further prodigious cost to the taxpayer.
The Minister may not agree with my analysis, but no one can deny that, for as long as most of us have been in the House, there have been calls for the reform of the common agricultural policy. I have one question for all who say that reform is the answer: how do they intend to bring about such reform of the CAP? It would require either unanimity or perhaps even a qualified majority vote, whereas it is as plain as a pikestaff that there are more winners than losers under the policy. I do not expect that many Germans would share my perspective; but my

307
perspective is that of a practical man representing the interests of an intensely practical beef industry, which was once the finest in the world.
What reform of the CAP there has been has always resulted in bigger problems, more expense and more bureaucracy. I would ask the Minister not to underestimate the devastating effect of all the bureaucracy on many farmers, especially small family farmers who find all this form filling very difficult. The Minister will be aware of the many grievances that have resulted from forms being rejected because they were filled in wrongly. I have often investigated such cases and I am persuaded that the forms were not deliberately filled in incorrectly. They were wrong either because of poor guidance from MAFF officials or because of their sheer difficulty.
I leave the House with one final thought. In 1997, it is likely that there will be more deaths among farmers who commit suicide or die from stress-related illnesses brought about by bureaucracy and the strains of seeing their cattle needlessly destroyed than among people contracting CJD. Surely this is a case, if ever there was one, of the cure being infinitely worse than the disease.
1.13 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I paused before rising, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was able to start his speech early, and I should have been more than happy to give time to any other hon. Member who wanted to speak. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, and I certainly understand the feeling with which he spoke. I heard his truncated interview on "Farming Today" this morning, and I acknowledge the vigour and sincerity with which he makes all his points.
Some weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman and I conducted an exchange across the Floor of the House to the effect that we need to treat this matter in an adult way. It is not a matter for party politics—but we still have to deal with the legacy that we have been left, and that limits our choices.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we must learn the lessons of this affair. Never again must Agriculture or Health Ministers precipitate food scares by the way in which they communicate risk. That is being given detailed attention by my colleagues in MAFF and the Department of Health. We are trying to learn the lessons of the past, and we, too, are practical people living in the real world. A change of Government does not mean that there will never be another food problem. We shall try to manage problems as they arise without causing the collapse of any industry or needlessly putting thousands out of work. Common sense is of the essence.
Certainly, the public need reassurance, which is why, later this year, we shall publish a White Paper on the setting up of an independent food standards agency, at arm's length from the Government but accountable to this House. That should lead to greater confidence on the part of the public and the industry. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many hours of civil service and ministerial time are being devoted to the preparation of that document.
Mr. Gill: The food industry is greatly concerned that the new agency may include nutrition in its remit. That,
308
the industry believes most strongly, is a matter for commercial judgment and decision. The risk is that standards and nutrition may get confused in the process.
Mr. Rooker: During the consultation period, Professor James has received well over 600 submissions. We have not ended consultation; the submissions are still coming in every week. They are all being considered and fed into the machine. Several people have written to Ministers on the subject of nutrition, but no decision has been taken on it yet: it is still under consideration. We fully expect the White Paper to include several green chapters, on which we are consulting further at the moment. We have no wish to be inflexible. Some issues are clearly in; others are clearly out. But there is a group in the middle on which we are more than happy to allow hon. Members and the industry to comment further, before we bring a Bill before the House.
A central plank of our policy is the restoration of confidence in food. The beef industry has taken a battering, but we are doing what we can actively to encourage consumers, based on the honest belief that beef produced in this country is safer than any other beef in the world.
We have taken steps to beef up the Meat Hygiene Service—the Ministry's policemen—to ensure that what goes on in slaughterhouses and meat-cutting plants fully complies with hygiene regulations. We recently closed down two plants on hygiene grounds, while the licences of certain other plants have been withdrawn on structural grounds. The service's officers do a difficult job. It is not easy to go into an abattoir and tell the owner or manager to slow down the line or else he will have to close down. We are giving officers all the powers that they need, and we fully intend to use them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the over-30-months scheme. What he says is wholly reasonable, but 30 months is not an arbitrary figure; nor was it imposed by Europe. It was the recommendation of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. The Government, like the previous Government, are duty bound to accept advice from independent scientists. I emphasise that they are not Ministry scientists, but independent scientists. As an aside, I might add that I relied on advice from independent scientists when making the recent decision on vitamin B6. Those people are not paid by the Ministry; the previous Government were right to rely on SEAC and we shall do the same.
The beef assurance scheme provides an opportunity for animals between 30 months and 42 months to be sold on the market, rather than being sent to over-30-months destruction. I realise that the scheme has never really taken off and, from my few short weeks of experience since coming to the Ministry, I believe that it has not been pushed.
Mr. James Paice: Before the Minister leaves the subject of the over-30-months scheme, I should like to raise a few points in the same spirit as that adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and the Minister. My hon. Friend raised the issues of the reduction in price and the cap of 560 kg. Will the Minister confirm that the 560-kg limit is the limit that the European Community funds, but that, until next week and under the previous Government's

309
decision, the British Treasury funds the excess? Will the Minister tell the House now—or, if he cannot, will he undertake to write to me or to my hon. Friend—what relative savings he expects will arise from next week's changes, that is, the savings from the reduction in price and from the weight capping?
Mr. Rooker: I shall be more than happy to do that, but my recollection is that the information that the hon. Gentleman requests has already been given in answers to written parliamentary questions. I authorised one answer that provided information that had not previously been given on the expected savings from the changes that are envisaged.
Before I come to the subject of renderers, it is fair to say that the Intervention Board, which is an independent Government agency, carried out competitive tendering to get value for money in dealing with the over-30-months scheme. Although I understand why the hon. Member for Ludlow is aggrieved that there are no OTMS abattoirs left in Shropshire, there are a good number on the outskirts. I know that, because I listed them all in a parliamentary answer to the hon. Gentleman. The second large abattoir that I visited was in Shropshire, although it was not involved in the over-30-months scheme. I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings, but the Intervention Board was duty bound to try to get value for money. Over the past three years, the sums paid out have declined considerably from the payments first made at the height of the BSE crisis.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the renderers subsidy, but I have to make it clear that we found that no money had been left behind to pay for it. The scheme was a one-off—£59 million for one year—and there is nothing in the kitty to pay for another year. If the scheme were to carry on, the money would have to come from some other element of the Ministry's support scheme for farmers. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced, we decided that, not having the money to extend the scheme past one year, we would withdraw the subsidy. All we are doing is coming to the end of the first year of a scheme for which money was provided for one year and not two, and that is that. I accept the consequences and realise that we cannot escape from the difficulties that the decision might cause.
The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) asked about the date-based scheme. We are pressing that issue and we have put proposals for a date-based scheme to the European Commission. We are currently having informal discussions, and we shall report the results of those discussions to the House, or communicate them to hon. Members during the recess, as quickly as possible. The issue is not one which we can deploy in public, but we are pressing on every possible means of breaching the ban. The idea that we might end the ban all in one go is probably not realistic, so we are operating on several different fronts, and a date-based scheme is certainly one of those fronts.
Mr. Paice: Will the Minister confirm what he has just said? He said that the Government have made proposals to the Commission. I am aware of informal discussions going on, but my understanding is that the Government have not yet made formal proposals for a date-based scheme.
Mr. Rooker: I can confirm that, because I read it in my brief, but I shall put it on the record now. We are developing a new proposal for a date-based scheme and have put our ideas to the Commission. Details will be announced when the exploratory talks with the Commission have progressed and the Government are ready to put forward a formal proposal. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to clarify that important issue.
The hon. Member for Ludlow, thinking of the future, talked about traceability and the tagging of cattle. I have discussed that with farmers, seen the taggers and heard the arguments about plastic and metal tags. It would appear that we shall probably have one plastic tag and one metal tag. I shall check when I get back to the Ministry, but it may well be that the relevant legislation is to be laid before the House today. We are actively pursuing that matter. We have got agreement on what we wanted: we were asked for two plastic tags, but all the indications were that, in this country, plastic tags do not work, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. An electronic scheme is certainly an option down the track and must be borne in mind, but we cannot go for a Rolls-Royce job to start with. If we do that, we shall be in real trouble from day one.
On a positive note, it is worth remembering that one of the five preconditions of the Florence framework for lifting the ban was a centralised animal identification and movement recording system with official registration—what I shall now call the British cattle movement service. I am pleased to announce to the House that, earlier today, I decided that we were in a position to announce where the headquarters of that operation would be, because we are moving fast to get it set up and running by the end of March next year. Some time ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister asked me to decide on the location, and the decision was urgent if we were to meet our deadline.
I am pleased to announce that the headquarters of the British cattle movement service, which will be paid for by the industry, will be located in Workington, west Cumbria. It is part of my ministerial duty to ensure that the project is successful and gives value for money to the industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister has played no part in the choice of location, which is in a constituency adjoining his own, although Workington was once represented by Fred Peart, a former Labour Minister of Agriculture. The decision will bring value for money, coupled with clear advantages in terms of our regional, social and employment policies. More than 100 new jobs will be created in the operation of the scheme.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On behalf of my constituents in Workington, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for this enlightened decision, for which many of us have pressed for several years. We will make the scheme work. I also express my gratitude to the West Cumberland development agency and especially to John Grainger and Barbara Stephens for the excellent way in which they conducted themselves in bringing forward the bid.
Mr. RookerI thank my hon. Friend. As he knows, it was crucial that a decision was made on the location of the headquarters if we were to stand a chance of getting it up and running.

311
The hon. Member for Ludlow raised several other issues in respect of the price of beef. His remarks about the market were absolutely right—producing beef for intervention is not a runner for the future and a market-led arrangement will have to be arrived at. The sooner that fact dawns on everybody, the better. Although I do not say that in the past schemes have been fudged at the edge, there is no doubt that, as different schemes have been introduced, farmers have adjusted their production in order to obtain the benefits. When the schemes are changed because of a crisis or because the European Commission decides to change things, the farmers get their fingers burnt. That is most unfortunate and I regret it.
It is important to produce a quality product at a quality price, so that the corner butcher's shop—there should be more of those—and the supermarket can sell with confidence to their customers, because they know which farm the beef came from and what the animal was fed on. Moreover, if ever a problem arises in future, better traceability systems will enable us to nip it in the bud straight away. There will be no need to search for cattle that may or may not be a problem for the food chain in future.
I shall write to the hon. Member for Ludlow in the early part of the recess about any points that I have not covered.

Ambulance Services (Powys)
1.29 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: I am confronted with every middle-aged Member's nightmare: my reading glasses went missing in the past hour and I am unable to read my speech. However, the Library has come to my rescue, and South and East Wales ambulance NHS trust will be put under the magnifying glass. It is especially appropriate as we are talking about the national health service and one might mention eye tests in passing. My eyesight is quite good and only requires a magnification of 1 or 1½, so I shall have a go and see how I get on.
I want to talk about the performance of the South and East Wales ambulance NHS trust in relation to Powys. It is not a tale that it should be proud of.
Wales is often unfairly referred to when drawing parallels with the size of a problem—rather larger than this magnifying glass, of course. Many disasters on the map of the world are said to take place in an area the size of Wales. In fact, Wales is much larger than people who live outside it—or people who live in certain corners of it—may realise. I do not know whether the House realises it, but the county of Powys is about 135 miles long. If it were placed lengthwise on the south of England it would stretch from the Severn bridge to Chiswick flyover. Given the number of constituencies that it would encompass, it is a massive area of territory.
The story of Powys in the past five years—under a different Administration—has not been a happy one. We have lost control of several services. Our fire service, which we used to control from Powys, is now operational from Carmarthen, as is our health authority. Effectively, 42 employees used to run Powys health authority from Bronllys in my constituency; almost all of that operation has closed down and now operates from Carmarthen. We were told last week that the Development Board for Rural Wales may be subsumed into the Welsh Development Agency; that may be the result of decision making in Cardiff.
Perhaps the most bizarre union took place at the time when the Conservative Government were manufacturing trusts at the rate of almost one a minute. There were effectively competitions to produce trusts. Some of the managers in Powys got empire building and when they moved to Cardiff they set their sights retrospectively on Powys and decided that they would build the South and East Wales ambulance NHS trust, a jumbo-sized ambulance trust, covering the huge area from Penarth in the south to within 10 miles of Wrexham in the north.
That decision set in train many events. We are distressed about what has happened. I shall do my best to describe some of the problems that we have witnessed in the past three or four years.
The ambulance trust was as dire as we had expected. It started in headquarters in Cardiff and moved to brand new headquarters in Pontypool—a state-of-the-art complex of the type that empire builders are encouraged to indulge in.
Most country people in Powys are blessed with a great deal of common sense, and forecast more or less immediately what would happen as a result of the creation of that jumbo-sized trust. The inevitable has occurred—an overspend, estimated to be £1.5 million to £2 million, resulting from the amalgamations.

313
Savings were then needed, and the middle management operating in Powys were sacked to save money. The middle management who operated Powys ambulance services so successfully in the 1980s and early 1990s did not run at a loss in any financial year. They were competent managers and ran the service with probity.
The trust became short of facilities, especially ambulances. A commitment had been made by contract with Dyfed Powys health authority that a certain number of ambulances would work in Powys. However, it was not beyond the imagination of SEWAT to transfer ambulances from the Crickhowell ambulance station in Powys to Cardiff to ferry patients from Cardiff royal infirmary to the university hospital of Wales, because of a shortage of ambulances. That had a knock-on, kickback effect into Powys, where extra cover had to be provided from Llandrindod to Brecon and Bronllys, which were providing cover for Crickhowell. I am told by operatives in Crickhowell that they spent most of their time working in Gwent, but Dyfed Powys health authority appears to being paying for all that.
This resulted eventually in Dyfed Powys health authority threatening SEWAT that it would terminate its contract forthwith because it was not providing the necessary service. The lively and intelligent people of Powys realised what was going on all along; 15,000 of them signed a petition in February, saying that they wanted their ambulance service back. The petition was stretchered up the steps of the Welsh Office in Cardiff. All 15,000 signatories were residents of Powys, who demanded a repatriation of their ambulance service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and I took a further 16,000-name petition in early June—collected in conjunction with the Shropshire Star—concerning the closure of a communications centre in Newtown, to the Secretary of State at Gwydyr house in Whitehall. Altogether, therefore, 31,000 people in Powys have expressed on petitions their dissatisfaction with the service.
In the meantime, there has been an horrendous litany of cases of poor communications between Pontypool, where the centre is, and Powys. Mistakes have been made; place names have been confused. Perhaps the worst example that I can give is that an ambulance that was supposed to arrive in Bala road in Llanfyllin arrived in Bala in Gwynedd instead. That type of thing appears to have been happening because the people in Pontypool do not know the geography of Powys. Eventually, they came to their senses and imported three residents of Powys to operate the communications centre in Pontypool.
Perhaps the worst feature, however, is that for some reason it was decided to close the communications centre of SEWAT in Newtown. I regard that as an act of vandalism, because the Newtown centre was working extremely well and knew all parts of Powys. There was no delay in getting ambulances to the right place within the specified 21-minute turnaround time. The problem is that it was decided to close it down. However, not only was it closed down but equipment worth some £80,000 was removed from the centre and it will take some doing to get the communications centre put back in Newtown. We find that extraordinary, and it culminated in a disjointed communications system.
314
In late February, I went to the hospital in Llandrindod and was confronted with a doctor, a nurse and an upset lady in a bed who had been waiting for two days to go to Hereford for an operation because no ambulance was available to take her from Llandrindod to Hereford. The bed had been booked in Hereford hospital and the surgeon was waiting to perform the operation, but there was no ambulance. After three hours on the third day, no ambulance had yet shown up. Understandably, she was in some pain and needed the operation urgently.
What does the Minister intend to do about the re-configuration of ambulance services in Wales? I have a dossier of comments from every GP practice in my constituency about the ambulance service in Powys. I shall give just one example of the sort of thing that has been happening. In a letter to the chief executive of SEWAT, Mr. Morris from Brecon in my constituency said:
"Between midnight and I am on the morning of Saturday 14th June Doctor Diane Davies made a 999 call to summon an ambulance to 26, Pendre Close, Brecon, Powys. My mother, Helena Mary Morris was very ill and needed to be taken to hospital.
After some twenty minutes the ambulance had failed to arrive so Doctor Davies rang Brecon War Memorial Hospital where the ambulance is based. It emerged that the crew were completely unaware that they were needed."
They were less than a mile away from the patient. The letter went on:
"They then immediately came to the assistance of my mother.
Despite the efforts of Doctor Davies and the ambulance crew my mother passed away.
I am very angry at what is such conspicuous incompetence on your organisation's part and I require an immediate explanation from you."
An explanation has been given, but it certainly does not match my constituent's description of what happened.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that that case underlines the gravity of the problem? SEWAT's problems do not just lead to inconvenience; they may be endangering the lives of people in Powys and they will continue to do so until we have an absolute assurance that they will be resolved.
Mr. Livsey: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend said.
Dr. Harvey of Talgarth wrote to the Dyfed local management committee of the trust outlining the problems that had been experienced. He said:
"Though we were informed that there was to be a change"—
in the operation of the ambulance service as a result of the removal of the control centre—
"we actually were given one week's notice of the actual date of change.
We had severe difficulty getting information from headquarters as all calls were diverted to an answer machine and we rarely received a reply."
He was referring to the doctor's answering service run by SEWAT. The GP practice in Knighton has given up on SEWAT, as have many GP practices in Powys, and is using a service operating out of Wolverhampton. Dr. Harvey goes on to say:
"We were given five days notice that our original radios were no longer of any use and had to be replaced at the cost of £900.

315
On the first night (27 March) we know for a fact that a patient with abdominal pain had to wait two hours before the doctor received the message (this was a test call by one of our lady doctors' husband to see what their response time was!)"
I have pages and pages of that sort of information if the Minister would like to receive it from me. It covers not just February and March but April and May. We should like to know, first, that Powys ambulance services are detached from SEWAT where it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that SEWAT is far too large and unwieldy, and incapable of managing the service in Powys effectively; and, secondly, that ambulance services in Powys will be returned to management in Powys, if necessary as a devolved division of Powys NHS trust. Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that American consultants are being used to advise the Welsh Office about ambulance services in Wales and that there are plans for either three ambulance services or one service for the whole of Wales? Will the Minister guarantee to the people of Powys that their ambulance service will be administered from within Powys?
The maxim of all this must be: local knowledge saves lives. Nothing less will do.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has raised this important issue as it gives me an opportunity to respond to any concerns the residents of Powys might have about these vital services.
The Government regard ambulance provision as an integral and important part of the health service, providing a front-line, life-saving service to the people of Wales. It is appropriate at the outset to pay tribute to the ambulance men and women, control staff and all the other staff and management who play such an important role in this relatively small but key part of the national health service. I am only too aware of the increasing pressures that the ambulance service must deal with daily through increased numbers of emergency and urgent calls. In the face of the increasing work-load, the dedication of all those staff has been demonstrated time and again, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude.
The South and East Wales ambulance NHS trust—or SEWAT, as it is better know—is by far the largest provider of ambulance services in Wales, serving a population of more than 1 million people. Those services are provided throughout the unitary authority areas of Powys, Blaenau Gwent, Monmouthshire, Torfaen, Caerphilly, Newport, Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. Within that area, Powys accounts for some 10 per cent. of the trust's catchment population, with 122,000 residents living within a vast area of over 2,000 sq miles. If I may put that into context, the population of Cardiff currently stands at just over 300,000 within an area of just 54 sq miles. Clearly, the county of Powys needs special attention to cover such vast distances and address other problems associated with its rurality. Having been brought up in Powys, I am aware of all those matters. Indeed, I still have family in the town of Brecon, to which the hon. Gentleman referred when bringing a sad case to our attention.
316
SEWAT was formed on 1 April 1993 by the amalgamation of three county ambulance services. Since it was formed, I recognise that the trust has made efforts to improve performance standards across all the areas it serves. Despite increasing numbers of emergency calls, the trust has improved its performance against the existing standards for ambulance response times in Powys. Those standards dictate that for 95 per cent. of emergency calls an ambulance must arrive at the scene of an incident within 21 minutes. In the year to 31 March 1992, a total of 4,146 emergency calls were dealt with by the former provider of ambulance services for the area of the Powys health authority, with an 83 per cent. response within 21 minutes. By comparison, in the year to 31 March 1997, calls had increased by almost 10 per cent. to 4,424 and, despite this significant increase, the trust managed to improve its response times for the 21-minute standard to just over 90 per cent. Although that falls short of national standards in Wales and the trust is currently facing difficulties in reaching the required performance targets, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that in Powys the South and East Wales ambulance trust has made real progress since it was first established.
As hon. Members know, however, SEWAT has had more than its fair share of problems—poor management, loose and unacceptable financial control, substandard services in some areas and practices that have, on occasion, fallen well below the standards that we would all expect from a public body. We have made it clear to the SEWAT board that we expect things to change and, I am pleased to say, there is some evidence that that is happening.
Financially, the trust seems to be returning to a firmer footing and in a number of other areas concerned with the real business of the trust—I mean the services that it provides—the board is taking action to put right issues that have dogged its rather unfortunate history—none of which, I am pleased to say, this Government have been associated with.
I know that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and other hon. Members have been concerned about SEWAT's new command and control centre, which was developed as part of the trust's programme to upgrade and improve the facilities and services that it provides. In 1994, each of the three areas served by the trust had in place its own control centre. Those were based at Cardiff, Newtown and Caerleon and although they were still operable, as a result of lack of investment the trust had inherited aging and unreliable technology that was in urgent need of replacement. In the case of the then Gwent and South Glamorgan control centres the equipment was more than 10 years old, and in the case of Powys the equipment was due for replacement the following year.
The trust examined all possible options for replacing the equipment, including simply purchasing new equipment for each site. It concluded that the most appropriate route to follow was centralisation on a single site at Mamhilad. One of the major benefits to arise from centralisation was the elimination of the fragmentation of services within the trust. At the time, each ambulance division was acting in isolation from the others, with the result that cross-boundary co-operation was poor.

317
Such a situation was intolerable in a single trust. The buildings housing the previous control centres were in a poor state of repair and would have required major structural work to bring them up to their former standard. The trust considered that the resources would be better utilised to provide additional medical equipment and to train more ambulance staff.
Although there are benefits associated with the centralisation of control centre functions, there have been a number of significant teething problems, some of which have been raised in correspondence that I have received from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who I see is in his place.
The decision of some staff at the last minute not to relocate from the Powys control centre to the new centre at Pontypool initially led to staff shortages and, coupled with technical difficulties, led to an increased number of problems for the trust. Those have now been addressed, following the recruitment of additional staff and the correction of difficulties with the technical equipment.
A number of operational measures have been introduced to help to resolve the trust's problems in relation to command and control. One of the most significant problems in dealing with the Powys area in the early stages of the implementation of the new control centre was the lack of geographical knowledge of the area, again partly due to the reluctance of staff to relocate. That led to a small number of calls being directed to the wrong location and caused some confusion and distress, not only for patients and their relatives, but for the ambulance crews who worked in those areas.
The trust has addressed the problem by ensuring that emergency calls from each of the three health authority areas served by the trust are handled separately. In addition, calls from GPs are handled by separate staff, as are calls relating to patient transport services.
Another major step that the trust has recently taken to eliminate the confusion caused by the lack of geographical knowledge of the control room staff is the purchase of a geographical information system. This allows staff to see on a single map the exact location of the caller and all the ambulances in that area, and to decide which ambulance should be assigned to the call and the length of time that it will take to arrive at the incident.
We should not forget the vital role played by the ambulance crews themselves. Their invaluable local knowledge allows them to reach the patient by taking the most appropriate route, and the same knowledge allows the patient to be transported to hospital, if necessary, by the quickest and safest route.
The importance that the trust places on ensuring that those and other problems are dealt with swiftly in Powys is clearly demonstrated by its willingness to work with other local health providers. It has established a development group which is chaired by the trust's own director of operations and includes representatives of the Dyfed Powys health authority, the local medical committee and the Powys Healthcare Trust.
The group seeks to address concerns over performance measures, standards and protocols for the ambulance service in the Powys area. It is also a useful tool for the
318
trust to rebuild relationships with those organisations after the recent difficulties in the Powys area. I firmly believe that the only way in which health services of any kind can be provided effectively is through co-operation between all health care agencies, and I applaud the trust's efforts in that respect.
Welsh Office officials have been, and remain, in close touch with the chairman and chief executive of SEWAT and, having seen the new facilities, were very impressed with the technology and systems employed and the capability of the staff. I have been informed by the chief executive of the trust that he would be pleased to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the trust headquarters to view the new command and control centre and to discuss any issues that he might wish to raise, and I recommend that he take up the offer. I am aware that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is taking advantage of a similar offer and will be visiting the trust on 12 August.
Performance standards are an important indicator of how well an ambulance trust is providing services to the population. However, the current standards tell us only how quickly an ambulance arrives at the scene of an incident; they do not give us details of the usefulness of the ambulance upon arrival, or the actual outcome for the patient following the intervention of ambulance personnel. For that reason, the Government are examining the financial and operational consequences of introducing new criteria-based performance standards in Wales.
The new standards would be based around the need for ambulance services to categorise calls according to urgency and medical need. The highest priority would be reserved for immediately life-threatening conditions such as a heart attack. We hope that that will help us to provide an even better service.
Because of their uniqueness, I accept that such new standards would mean significant challenges for the trust in the Powys area. However, I would look to the health authority and the trust to rise to the challenge and meet any exacting new standards that we decide to introduce.
Mr. Livsey: In the light of his speech, will the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied with SEWAT's performance, or are we due for another review of the configuration of ambulance services in Wales? Is there shortly to be a new configuration?
Mr. Griffiths: I am not satisfied with the way in which SEWAT has been operating. Although it has greatly improved, from as late as May this year I have a three-page catalogue of complaints about the way in which the service operated. Those complaints come from hon. Members, people in the health service and even Machynlleth town council. Many bodies have complained. I can only apologise for what has happened and express my regrets about cases in which there were serious outcomes because of the failures of the trust to act properly.
More paramedics are being trained. There are now 37, and there will be a further four by the end of October. I look forward to significant improvements.
With regard to the review of the ambulance service configuration, it was widely reported last Friday that the Welsh ambulance policy advisory group had recommended a new configuration for ambulance services in Wales. There have been reports in the press of either

319
one service or three services. It is too early for me to respond to the report. The proposals are undoubtedly radical, and I will want to consider them and have further discussions. I would welcome further observations from Opposition Members or my hon. Friends about the reconfiguration of ambulance services in Wales. An announcement will be made in the not-too-distant future.
I repeat that I am only too well aware of the problems facing SEWAT in the Powys area and the major steps being taken by the trust to address those problems. I am
320
informed that the earlier difficulties experienced with the introduction of the new command and control centre are being overcome. I expect the people of Powys to have an ambulance service that fully meets their needs and of which they can be proud. Notwithstanding that, I appreciate the need to reshape the ambulance service in Wales so that all people can receive a better service.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Freedom of Information
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what actions he has taken to improve public access to Government information. [9706]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): The manifesto on which we were elected made it clear that we must rebuild the British people's trust in the way the Government work. Central to this is our commitment to more open government. We shall introduce freedom of information legislation to improve access to Government information. The need to improve access and accountability underpins our reform of the charter programme. We are actively pursuing developments in information technology to enhance and extend the ways in which people can obtain information on Government services.
    Dr. Jones: We appreciate that it will take time to enact legislation. In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend look at ways of bolstering the existing code of practice? For example, will he consider amending the usual practice of not disclosing legal advice to the Government? I am thinking of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General's recent refusal, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), to disclose his legal opinion on arms sales to Indonesia. It is difficult to see how any possible harm arising from such disclosure could outweigh the public's right to know.
    Dr. Clark: We have already said that we shall try to examine the code of practice in a more liberal vein. Our priority is to press ahead with freedom of information legislation. That means that most of our resources have been involved in preparing that piece of legislation, not in overhauling the code.
    Mr. Baker: In looking to improve public access to Government information, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster consider the role played by the Minister without Portfolio, who is allegedly responsible to the House through written questions only, notwithstanding the statement by the Leader of the House last week? Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that the Minister without Portfolio has refused to give details of journeys he has undertaken at public expense and details of meetings that he has undertaken on behalf of the Government—in fact, he has refused to give any details whatsoever? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister without Portfolio is becoming the Minister without accountability?
    Dr. Clark: I cannot answer for the Minister without Portfolio. He answers written questions put to him by hon. Members and I understand that he has a slot in the time allocated to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in order to answer oral questions in the House regarding his responsibilities for the millennium dome.
    Mr. Thompson: While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assertions about more open government,
    322
    will he instruct the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to encourage more open government in Northern Ireland, especially in relation to the Maryfield secretariat and the meetings of the Irish and British council?
    Dr. Clark: I may have many powers, but I do not have the power to instruct my right hon. Friend. However, I am sure that she will take note of the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mrs. Shephard: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how his plans to improve public access to Government information will be implemented in respect of the new joint consultative Cabinet Committee when the Prime Minister admitted yesterday in a written answer that he cannot yet set out its terms of reference? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how that contributes to open government?
    Dr. Clark: We have followed the practice of the previous Government in publishing information about the membership of the various Cabinet Committees and we shall continue to do so. We shall continue to give as much information as we possibly can.
    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his plans to publish a freedom of information Bill. [9707]
    Dr. David Clark: I intend to publish a draft freedom of information Bill early in the new year, which will follow a consultative period after the freedom of information White Paper.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful that my right hon. Friend says that because we need a Bill with a definite timetable in this Session. I do not know why he does not take off the peg the Bill proposed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), now the Minister for Arts, which seemed pretty good to me. The important principle that he should bear in mind is not that it should be watered down but that it should be enforced by an independent commissioner rather than by a House of Commons Committee with a Government majority.
    Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend has almost made the case for our not having legislation in this Session. We must get the legislation right. It is no use having a half-baked scheme. My hon. Friend has just raised one of the many issues on which it is right and proper that there should be debate, not only in the House but across the nation.
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for freedom of information in respect of matters relating to Scotland. [9708]
    Dr. David Clark: Our proposed freedom of information Act would have application throughout the UK, but, on the assumption that the Scottish people will vote for a Scottish Parliament in September and that Parliament will approve the legislation, it will be for the Scottish Parliament itself to determine the approach of

    323
    the Scottish Executive and Scottish public bodies to openness and freedom of information in areas of devolved competence.
    Mr. Dalyell: In that case, who resolves differences of opinion between Westminster and Edinburgh?
    Dr. Clark: There would, in effect, be two areas of jurisdiction, depending on whether the information in question related to a matter that is reserved or devolved. The law applying to reserved matters would be for Westminster and it would be for the Scottish Parliament to decide and legislate on the level of disclosure on devolved activities carried out in its name.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: A moment or two ago, the right hon. Gentleman said he did not want to have anything to do with half-baked schemes. Is not this a classic example of a half-baked scheme? What will be the precise responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the House in this matter?
    Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman's point is covered. Other countries have similar situations. A situation similar to that which exists in the United States of America would apply where there is a central freedom of information Act and, in addition, different Acts relating to it in various states. The United States has two jurisdictions, as will Britain.

    Civil Service (Recruitment)
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to review the method of recruitment of civil servants. [9709]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I have no such plans.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that among the many achievements of the previous Government was the reduction by 35 per cent. in the number of civil servants by natural wastage? Will he also confirm that the Government's plan to break up the United Kingdom and establish new Assemblies and Parliaments all over the place will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of civil servants—100 more for the Welsh Assembly and 500 more for the Scottish Parliament? Will he tell British taxpayers that those recruits will be obtained by closing the Scottish and Welsh Offices in London because they will not be needed any more?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I can assure the hon. Lady that there are no plans to have other than a unified civil service, that there are no plans afoot either to shed members of the various Departments—
    Mrs. Gorman: They have to be shed.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Lady has to make up her mind whether she wants people to be sacked or retained to make the kind of contribution that we would expect them to make, as the majority of civil servants do. The hon. Lady referred to the previous Government. She knows that they managed to transfer 388,000 civil servants to agencies.
    324
    We are concerned to maintain a professional civil service that is recruited on the basis of fair and open competition. That will apply to the recruitment of civil servants in the future, as it has in the past.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: One civil servant, the Cabinet Secretary, is to retire at the end of this year. Will the Government look closely at the best methods of recruiting a new Cabinet Secretary, whether it be by the use of headhunters, by advertising or by the traditional method of appointing from within the civil service?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The recruitment of the new Cabinet Secretary is a matter for the civil service and the Prime Minister. We have no objection to using headhunters to advise us, in addition to open advertisements for jobs.
    Mr. Hogg: With reference to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), may I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he should have calculated how many civil servants will be retained in the Scottish Office as now is, and how many will be transferred to the departments that will be responsible to the Scottish Parliament? My hon. Friend would like to know what the numbers will be both ways. Surely the House is entitled to an answer.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The House will get the answer at the appropriate time when the calculations have been made.

    Electronic Information
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to permit individuals to supply information to the Government electronically. [9710]
    Dr. David Clark: Information technology will revolutionise the way in which citizens relate to government. I am conscious of the success of the child benefit scheme promoted by my hon. Friend in Cambridgeshire. We intend to expand such imaginative schemes. It is a matter of great regret that the previous Government did not have the guts to pick up such projects and run with them.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and I am grateful for the interest that he has shown in the project that I pioneered in Cambridgeshire. If we look forward a little, there will be a time quite soon when people will expect to make their tax returns or even their benefit claims through information technology. It would be nice to know whether the Government have any plans to develop those areas.
    Dr. Clark: Yes, indeed. One can look at information technology in three ways. First, we use it to modernise our Departments and make us more efficient. Secondly, we have tried to use it to provide information on public services. Thirdly, there is scope for the delivery of public services by electronic means. If the technology moves apace, as it has in the banking world, a large percentage of Government services could be dealt with by electronic means in the near future. One or two pilot schemes are in operation and we hope to put them into full service within the next two years.

    Charters
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to reform the programme of charters. [9711]
    Mr. Kilfoyle: As we announced in June, we are relaunching the programme as part of our wider initiative to improve government. We have already begun a series of visits and meetings to discuss with ordinary people—both users and service providers—how we can make the programme more meaningful and help to ensure the delivery of better public services.
    Mr. Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the failures of the Conservative Government's citizens charter programme was that it was essentially a top-down process without any involvement from local people at local level? Will he outline his plans to ensure that real people have real discussions about what those standards mean and that they have real, enforceable rights?
    Mr. Forth: Real focus groups.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We intend to introduce a people's panel, which will, indeed, use focus groups. It will also use citizens juries, deliberative polling and telephone interviews. We want to find out what ordinary people want, not what the self-appointed great and good want. The previous Government—that lot over there, who do not use public transport and who use private education and private health care—told others what they ought to have rather than giving them what they wanted.
    Mr. Rowe: As the Government claim that their priorities are education, education, education, can we now look forward to a seriously enforceable contract with schools obliging them to deliver something that the public really need and want? Education must be one of the last remaining sectors in which there is an implied contract with the public but absolutely no obligation on schools to deliver.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman will know that an increasing number of the 645 charter mark holders are schools. There are 944 applications in the pipeline, including many from schools that see the benefits of obtaining charter marks and assessing their ability to deliver a wider service in their communities.

    Freedom of Information
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce freedom of information legislation. [9713]
    Dr. David Clark: I plan to publish a draft freedom of information Bill in the new year.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people will welcome the prospect of genuine freedom of information legislation? Will he ensure that that legislation covers all aspects of the work of the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry so that it will be possible to find out the true cost of the Trident nuclear missile system and the true amount
    326
    of the subsidy provided for the arms industry and arms exports? Past Governments have consistently refused to reveal the real cost of the arms industry to our economy.
    Dr. Clark: It is important for us to consult as widely as possible on freedom of information legislation, but I warn my hon. Friend that there will have to be exemptions—as there are in every freedom of information Act anywhere in the world. There are issues affecting the security of our nation, and others, on which we cannot provide information freely and fully.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his White Paper on freedom of information. [9715]
    Dr. David Clark: As the House will know, I had originally hoped to be able to publish a freedom of information White Paper before the summer recess, but I am afraid that that simply has not proved possible.
    Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that the White Paper will end, once and for all, the scandal whereby MI5, MI6 and certain Departments—particularly the Ministry of Defence—have for years been allowed to behave like secret societies, to such an extent that people in this country have had to resort to United States freedom of information legislation to find out what is happening here?
    Dr. Clark: I think that the new freedom of information legislation will change the culture of politics in Whitehall. It will introduce the presumption that information will be available to individuals unless there are good reasons for it not to be. We will, of course, study examples in the United States and other countries along with Westminster models to get the balance right, so that the individual can have as much freedom as possible without harming our country's interests.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: Will the Minister stiffen up that rather mealy-mouthed answer? Some Opposition Members—and, I hope, some Labour Members—actually believe that certain areas of national security should remain secret and should not be wide open to people who might undermine our society. Before some hon. Members turn that into a joke, let me remind the House that we are fighting terrorism in one part of the United Kingdom. That is not a joke.
    Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman ought to have listened a little more attentively. I made it clear that nothing would be revealed if it affected the security of our nation.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the wake of the Scott report, which revealed a disturbing culture of secrecy and endemic dissembling as being endemic in our system of government, freedom of information legislation became an integral part of the Prime Minister's agenda of restoring trust with the British people? If that is true, will my right hon. Friend, with the Prime Minister's full authority, root out any resistance to freedom of information legislation wherever it lies in the Government?
    Dr. Clark: I will certainly do that. I passionately believe in the legislation: it will do a great deal to restore trust between the citizens of Britain and us the Government.

    Food Standards Agency
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish his proposals for a food standards agency. [9716]
    Dr. David Clark: The Government propose to publish a White Paper in the autumn and intend to introduce legislation to establish a food standards agency as soon as legislative time allows. The legislation will be based on the excellent work of Professor James to which there have been more than 650 responses in a consultative exercise that was launched by the Government. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will today make a statement on the responses received to Professor James's report on an agency and on measures being taken in the interim to improve food safety arrangements.
    Mr. Paice: May I take it that it will be two or three years before the agency is up and running? In the meantime, what are the Government and the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that the safety of British food is properly communicated? In particular, what is he doing about the many Labour-controlled local education authorities that are still banning the use of beef in school meals despite the fact that the Minister and his colleagues rightly declare that British beef is safe?
    Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the scandalous state into which the Conservative Government brought the reputation of British food. I chair the Cabinet Committee that is overseeing the situation. We have put in place interim arrangements to rectify the situation and we think that they will be able to deal with any food incidents that occur. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has brought together all his civil servants who deal with food under one management chain, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will soon make further announcements on how he intends to reorganise his Department to deal more effectively with food safety. I concede that the Government have a terrible legacy from the Conservatives, but the Labour Government will put it right.
    Mr. Tyler: Can the Chancellor be more specific about the timetable? He has acknowledged that there will be a period for consultation on the White Paper and that that will be followed by legislation. It is likely that the new agency will not be in operation until April 2000. In the meantime, the situation is deteriorating. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that that is a legacy from the previous regime, but there is a crisis of confidence in food safety in the United Kingdom now and worry about the import of substandard food—notably beef—from other countries. I press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what action plan he and his colleagues have now to improve confidence in British food because lack of confidence, which is surely unjustified and perhaps irrational, nevertheless exists.
    Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. A great deal of the public's lack of confidence in British food is unjustified because it and some of the standards that apply to it are very high. Some Opposition Members
    328
    shared our pleasure when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food achieved success in Brussels to ensure that the standards that apply in abattoirs and to beef coming to Britain are the same as those that apply in Britain. We have put in place new, interim measures to bring together the scientists and food experts in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health under a unified chain of command to try to ensure that they can respond more effectively. Further suggestions and improvements will be announced this afternoon by my right hon. Friend.

    Focus Groups
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of the proposed arrangements for consulting focus groups. [9717]
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We are currently considering ways of consulting and involving ordinary people more in decisions about the delivery of public services. Ideas are at an early stage and I am therefore unable to give estimated costs, but costs to my Department would be met from within existing budgets.
    Mr. Jenkin: Under what parliamentary vote would the Minister be spending that money?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: It would be the vote accorded to the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service).
    Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister consider arranging for a focus group to be brought together in Somerset so that he can find out whether among ordinary people, as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy described them earlier, he can find one person who agrees that Somerset county council should be meeting today to reduce its local government expenditure, cutting teachers' jobs and reducing social services as a result of Government diktat, rather than following the expressed wishes of the people through the ballot box?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I would not dream of commenting on the decisions made by Somerset county council, but I will certainly consider Somerset as a potential venue for one of the focus groups that we shall convene in order to find out what people think of the public services on offer.
    Mr. Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in contrast to the cynicism of Opposition Members, the real purpose of focus groups is to improve legislation and policy by finding out what people really think about what the Government are doing? Is not that the way forward for a Government who want to listen and to understand what people have to say? Are not focus groups, far from being the joke that the Opposition seem to think they are, a way forward for the Government which will be welcomed by most people?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I agree that focus groups are one tool which we can use to find out what people want—rather than do as the previous Government did and tell people what they ought to have. It is a bit rich for a Conservative

    329
    Member to criticise a party with an overwhelming mandate that wants to rebuild the bond of trust with the people.
    Mr. Gray: I was interested to hear the Minister refer earlier to the people's panel. Does he agree that there is already a people's panel and that this is it? Why does he need another?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: When we produce our White Paper on better government, we shall talk about accountability, accessibility, responsiveness, efficiency and open government. Parliamentary accountability will be a key element in that.

    Freedom of Information
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his Department's White Paper on freedom of information. [9718]
    Dr. David Clark: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).
    Mr. Mackinlay: When my right hon. Friend hears Conservative Members praying in aid the nation's security as a way of objecting to the freedom of information legislation that he proposes, does it occur to him that that is Toryspeak for "Please don't reveal the files from the past 18 years"? They must be thinking of items such as Westland, guns to Iraq and some of the peculiar activities of some of the deep forces in the security forces during the industrial relations disputes of years past.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary for us to have full disclosure and to abandon the absurd and undemocratic 30-year rule on the disclosure of public records? Should not we have transparency of government with regard not only to the Tories' stewardship over the past 18 years but to future Governments, too? Will my right hon. Friend end the 30-year rule—an action which would make for a more democratic society in which records were disclosed early?
    Dr. Clark: I am actively examining the 30-year rule with a great deal of sympathy for the idea of deciding how we can relax it. There are massive cost and resource implications, and although I hope that we can make progress it may have to take place incrementally.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider in the White Paper the rule that stops one Government seeing the files of another? Was it not rather difficult for the previous Government to justify the sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia when the decision was made under the previous Labour Administration, a few years after the invasion of East Timor? Will the right hon. Gentleman now publish the advice that was given, with special reference to the ambassador in Indonesia who seemed to think that it was a good idea for the Indonesians to invade East Timor? Let us have it all out in the open.
    Dr. Clark: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The agreement that files from
    330
    outgoing Governments be closed is a long-standing convention of the House and of government, and it would be inadvisable to change it. If we do relax the 30-year rule, it is more likely that the information that he seeks will be made available. That goes without saying.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Michael Spicer: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 July. [9736]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I attended a meeting of the Labour party's national executive. I had meetings with Cabinet colleagues and others. Later today, I shall host a reception at 10 Downing street.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Looking back on the past 96 days, and with the benefit of hindsight, what does the Prime Minister think has been his worst mistake—losing control over interest rates, raiding pension funds, robbing the reserves, or what?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly our greatest triumph has been to remove the Conservative Government. As for my greatest mistake, that is for me to know and for the hon. Gentleman to find out.
    Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister join me in expressing sympathy for all those killed and injured by the appalling bomb in Jerusalem this morning? Will he urge all those involved in the middle east peace process to continue their efforts towards a lasting peace?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House when I express my deepest sympathy for all those families who are bereaved in Israel today and for the families of those injured. It was an appalling terrorist outrage. Our deepest condolences go to the people of Israel and to the Jewish community in this country. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do all we can to work for peace in the middle east.
    Mr. Hague: On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to associate myself with the Prime Minister's last remarks.
    Given the statement of the Financial Secretary yesterday that the Government would investigate tax avoidance schemes relating to offshore trusts in Jersey, what advice does the Prime Minister have for the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, the noble Lord Simon, who has £1 million invested in an offshore trust in Jersey in order to pay less tax?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that there has been any more vile and scurrilous campaign than the one mounted against David Simon. This is a man who has given up earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to serve the Government and to give public service, and has done so without any payment at all. Instead of vilifying him, the Conservative party should support that

    331
    initiative. It only shows how remote the Conservative party is from the business community that it should attack him in that way.
    Mr. Hague: Is there not a strong smell of hypocrisy coming from the Government? Does the Prime Minister recall his policy statement three years ago, which said:
    "All governments owe it to their people to take action against the persistent few who … shelter their wealth overseas",
    and made specific reference to Jersey? Is it not breathtaking hypocrisy to criticise that and then for a Minister to take advantage of it? Is it not time that members of the Government stopped preaching one thing and doing another?
    The Prime Minister: The ones who have been preaching one thing and doing another are Conservative Members who say that they want close links with business, but vilify a business person who comes in to give service free to his country. Lord Simon will be subject to the same rules as everybody else. The campaign mounted by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is absolutely disgraceful, and I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition associates himself with it.
    Mr. Hague: The fact that a Minister is not taking any payment does not mean that he does not have to follow everybody else's rules. What advice has the Prime Minister given to the Minister about the suitability of handling gas liberalisation and energy taxation while hanging on to £2 million-worth of shares in BP? Does the Prime Minister think that that is an acceptable conflict of interest?
    The Prime Minister: The Minister has obeyed all the rules all the way throughout. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of anything to the contrary, perhaps he will come to the Dispatch Box and say so. The Minister has retained the BP shares because he is obliged to do so. Having been the chairman of BP, if he got rid of them he would fall foul of the rules on insider trading. That is precisely what happened in the case of the former Deputy Prime Minister and of Paul Channon, now Lord Channon. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of any case in which the Minister has disobeyed the rules, let him come to the Dispatch Box and say so, or withdraw that slur.
    Mr. Hague: Is the Prime Minister aware that "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" states:
    "Where there is a doubt it will almost always be better to relinquish or dispose of the interest but in such cases the Prime Minister must be the final judge"?
    Will the Prime Minister tell us how he reconciles the European Union documents which I have here, on agreement on liberalisation of gas supply and restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products, with holding £2 million-worth of shares in one of the world's largest energy companies?
    The Prime Minister: That is really not good enough. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make an allegation of that nature, it is not good enough. I have explained why the shares were not disposed of—because it would have been wrong to dispose of them. The Minister was acting on the advice of the permanent secretary at the
    332
    Department of Trade and Industry and entirely in accordance with the rules of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". If the right hon. Gentleman has any evidence at all of any rule broken, let him say so. The past Conservative Government indulged in appalling conduct, but just because they did it does not mean that they can slur us with doing what they used to do.
    Mr. Hague: Was it not foolish of the Prime Minister to place the hon. Gentleman in a position where he is the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness of the United Kingdom, but is not supposed to take decisions that have a bearing on one of the country's largest companies? Has the Prime Minister not noticed that even his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)—he knows a thing or two about shareholding—has said this morning
    "I think that people like Lord Simon … Either … must divest themselves of their shares, or divest themselves of office in Her Majesty's Government"?
    Is that not a fair statement?
    The Prime Minister: No, it is not a fair statement, for the reason that I have just given. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, quite specifically, to state what rule had been broken—three times I asked him and he failed to do so. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will be out in a moment.
    The Prime Minister: I asked the Leader of the Opposition to state what rule had been broken, and he failed to do so because no rule has been broken. The Minister has behaved with complete propriety throughout. He has followed precisely the procedure that was followed in the case of the Deputy Prime Minister in the previous Government. I really think that the right hon. Gentleman should go away and grow up and ask more sensible questions.
    Mr. Hague: When the Prime Minister gets patronising, Madam Speaker, you know that he has lost the argument. The fact is that the Minister has held shareholdings in BP while appearing to make decisions that would have related to BP. Is it not time that the Prime Minister got a grip on that matter and took a leaf out of the BP annual accounts, written by the noble Lord himself, which state:
    "Only the highest standards of … openness and accountability will do"?
    Is not that the standard by which the Government should be judged?
    The Prime Minister: My noble Friend has maintained the highest standards of openness and probity. For the fourth time, the right hon. Gentleman has come to the Dispatch Box and failed to say what rule has been broken; if he believes that rules have been broken, perhaps he should go outside the House and repeat that allegation where it can be properly tested. He will not do so, because he knows that he cannot. He was part of a Government who fell beneath the proper standards. Lord Simon has behaved with complete probity and acted on proper advice throughout. The fact that the Conservative party is

    333
    attacking him for working for free in the public service shows how remote it is from business people in Britain today.
    Ms Stuart: I welcome the Government's initiative to set up literacy summer schools—two schools in my constituency will benefit—but how will we monitor their success and their long-term viability?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is an important initiative. It will enable us to raise standards of literacy and numeracy in our schools which, I am afraid, are still far below those in other countries. Indeed, it is the sad case that almost 50 per cent. of our 11-year-olds do not reach the proper standards of literacy and numeracy. The literacy summer schools will be part of the programme that will help to raise standards. That is the only way of getting the 21st-century education that we want and deserve.

    Lichfield, Burntwood and District
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the long-term effects of Her Majesty's Government's policies on the people and businesses of the city of Lichfield, Burntwood and the surrounding district. [9737]
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that many benefits will have been noticed by the hon. Gentleman's constituents, including the 350 young people in Lichfield who are unemployed, some of whom will benefit from the welfare-to-work programme; the 10,000 people in Lichfield on the national health service waiting lists, who will benefit from the cuts in bureaucracy and the extra £1.2 billion going into the health service next year; and the 600 or more five, six and seven-year-olds in his constituency who are taught in class sizes of more than 30. Added to the cut in corporation tax, that is a very good deal for his constituents.
    Mr. Fabricant: Notwithstanding that answer, is the Prime Minister aware of the feeling of injustice in Staffordshire over the amount that is paid per pupil in Staffordshire schools? Is he aware that Staffordshire is at the very bottom of the list of shire counties? That is the view of both Government and Opposition Members with Staffordshire constituencies.
    The previous Government conducted a review of different ways of calculating the standard spending assessment. It was not a successful review from Staffordshire's point of view. What can the Prime Minister offer the people of Staffordshire? Can he tell parents in Staffordshire that there will be fairness in the amount given per pupil?
    The Prime Minister: I obviously cannot make specific commitments on financing, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was great concern throughout the country about the way in which the standard assessment was being done, not least when people compared, for example, what was given to Westminster with what was given to other authorities. We are considering how the system can be made fairer. I believe that people in the hon. Gentleman's area, like people elsewhere in the country, will benefit from the considerable increase in expenditure on education announced in the Budget.

    Engagements
    Mr. Beith: Does the Prime Minister recall that, before the general election, he gave strong support to the case for dualling the A1 from Newcastle to Edinburgh and that shadow Ministers put it in writing that it would not be affected by any moratorium or review of the roads programme? Does he still agree that the gap in the strategic road system—the only all-weather route between London and Edinburgh—ought not to remain, and will he make that known to Ministers, because there seems to be some delay? [9738]
    The Prime Minister: It is a stretch of road with which I am well familiar, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that dualling that part of the Al is an important item. He will know that that is currently under consideration. We cannot guarantee a successful outcome, but it is essential that the right infrastructure links are maintained in that part of the world, because it is extremely important for the business that crosses the border between Scotland and England.
    Mr. Tipping: Is it not clear that one of the most damning legacies of the Tory years is the state of disrepair of our schools? In Nottinghamshire alone, there are £111 million-worth of outstanding repairs. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that local education authorities make urgent bids for the £1 billion announced today, so that at least a start can be made on rebuilding our schools? It must be the case that investment in education is investment in the future. [9739]
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, the money that has been given—more than £1 billion for the school repairs programme over the lifetime of this Parliament—is the biggest programme that has been introduced for many years. I urge local education authorities and schools to submit their plans so that we can put our schools into a proper state of repair. Many school buildings and many schools in the country fall way beneath what is acceptable if our children are to be taught properly. I am delighted at the announcement today. I hope that my hon. Friend, others of my hon. Friends, and Opposition Members will encourage local education authorities to come forward with proposals.
    Mr. Ashdown: May I, in this last Prime Minister's Questions before the summer recess, bring the Prime Minister back to an issue on which his Government have been rather coy over the summer, but which I believe will dominate our politics in the winter? If I were to say to the Prime Minister that one of his Health Ministers has now announced that his Government will spend £350 million less next winter on the health service than the outgoing Conservative Government would have done, would he be surprised?
    The Prime Minister: As I have already said, we have inherited the spending plans of the previous Administration. We are sticking to those, but we are putting in the colossal sum of £1.2 billion extra next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Next year."] Yes, I know that that is next year. We have inherited the proposals of the previous Government for this year, but the money for next year is helping health authorities to plan ahead. Of course, as

    335
    a result of the changes that are being made, we are gradually reducing the huge burdens of bureaucracy in the internal market that the Conservatives introduced, and which we want to abandon.
    Mr. Ashdown: But the right hon. Gentleman precisely has not inherited the previous Government's figures. He has reduced them by the impact of inflation. In case he has forgotten, that was precisely specified in a parliamentary answer given on 7 July. Unfortunately for our hospitals, there is to be a reduction of £350 million against what the previous Government spent. Let me put a more specific question to the Prime Minister. One of his personal five early promises to the electorate at the election was that he would cut waiting lists. Will waiting lists be cut this winter?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely in order to cut waiting lists that we have taken the measures that we have already outlined to cut bureaucracy. The plans that we have inherited are precisely the plans that we are putting through, but more money is going into the NHS as a result of the decisions announced in the Budget. I know that decisions on public finance are difficult, but, in the past few weeks, the hon. Gentleman's party has called for greater expenditure on local government, pensions, young people, health and education. With the best will in the world, we have to make sure that we make the arrangements necessary to bring the large budget deficit down. Within that, the Government will put extra resources into the health service by getting rid of the internal market and by giving more cash to the NHS.
    Mrs. Gilroy: Does my right hon. Friend understand the real anger that South West Water consumers feel at their high water bills, especially as they are imposed by a company that, although it said a few weeks ago that it could not afford the windfall tax without borrowing money, has found £9 million to buy an American firm, and at yesterday's annual general meeting confirmed that it would pay out the highest dividends ever—20 per cent. more than last year? Does my right hon. Friend share with me the wish that the review that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has in hand on utility regulation will ensure that consumers have much more robust representation of their interests? [9740]
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. Part of the purpose of the review is to make sure that we construct a long-term framework that is fair to consumers as well as shareholders. Since water privatisation, water and sewerage bills have risen far above the rate of inflation. The profits and dividends of those leading utility companies confirm that we were right to say that the windfall tax could be paid and that we could give our young people the skills and jobs that they needed.
    Mr. Wells: Does the Prime Minister agree with Dr. Festing of Friends of the Earth that Labour has already begun to betray its green promises? Will he condemn the proposals of the Minister for London and Construction and Labour-dominated Hertfordshire county council to build thousands and thousands of houses in the green belt? [9741]
    The Prime Minister: That is absolute nonsense. When one investigated the reports in the newspapers that we had announced some great new policy on the green belt, one discovered that that policy is based on the Green Paper published in November by the hon. Gentleman's Government. The policy of this Government has not changed since the policy of the previous Government, so if the hon. Gentleman is criticising us, he must be criticising them, too. I suspect that his question is based on a misapprehension.
    Mr. Pond: Is the Prime Minister aware that, only in the past few hours, the contract has been signed for the brand new £115 million hospital for Dartford and Gravesham, breaking the Tory logjam on the construction of new hospitals? It will provide the hospital for which my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) have campaigned for so long and which they richly deserve. Will he now ensure that the remaining 13 projects under the revamped private finance initiative are brought forward quickly so that people in other areas, in common with my constituents, can see that, whereas the previous Government made promises, this Government keep them? [9742]
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted at the news that the contract has been signed for the Dartford and Gravesham hospital. We will make progress on the other 13 remaining projects as quickly as we possibly can. It is a fitting tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the energy and vigour of this Government that, whereas the previous Government talked about the project for months and months, they did absolutely nothing to deliver it, but, in three months, we have delivered it.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) was correct to raise the issue of the green belt because a report in The Sunday Times at the weekend quoted one of the Prime Minister's Ministers at the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Does the Prime Minister realise that in Gloucestershire such remarks about building on green fields as opposed to brown-field sites will cause great alarm? Does he also agree that, although it may be cheaper and more convenient to build on green-field sites, the long-term costs to future generations would be enormous? [9743]
    The Prime Minister: That is precisely why I said to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford that my hon. Friend the Minister was merely setting the same targets as the previous Government had. The policy has not changed in any shape or form. A Green Paper was published in November by the hon. Gentleman's Government, and we are considering the responses to it. There is no intention to cut great swathes through the green belt, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. We support the idea of the green belt.
    Mr. Hanson: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the international crime victimisation report which was published today and which shows that, after

    337
    18 years of Conservative Government, Britain has the highest level of car robberies, burglaries and assaults of any of the 11 industrialised nations? Will he confirm to the House what action the new Labour Government intend to take to reduce crime? Will he confirm once and for all that, whatever else it may be, the Conservative party no longer has the right to call itself the party of law and order? [9744]
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party was the party of law and disorder, because crime doubled during the Conservative years. This Government will take action to reduce it, including action on juvenile offending in particular to try to halve the time that it takes to get juvenile offenders to court. We will also take action against anti-social behaviour in our local communities and, later today, we shall announce action on sentencing.
    We are taking action on crime; we are being tough on crime, but we are also addressing the causes of crime. That is why the welfare-to-work programme, which will give jobs to young people, and improvements in our education system give us the best chance of creating a decent, civilised society in which we are more likely to breed responsible citizens.
    Mr. Greenway: What promise did the Prime Minister make to Mr. Roy Hughes, the former Member for Newport, East to make way for the hon. Gentleman who formerly represented Stratford-on-Avon? According to newspaper reports, Mr. Hughes is attributed as having said that he was offered a peerage. If that comes to light during the next few days, would it not show that, even within a 100 days, his Government are steeped in hypocrisy? [9745]
    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of commenting on any peers list—but anyone on it will be there on merit. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), now a Minister, was selected on one member, one vote—by a rather larger electorate than chose the present Conservative leader.
    Mr. Bill Michie: I welcome the steps already taken by the Labour Government in their first few months of power to raise standards and optimism for the future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a strong manufacturing base for sustained economic growth?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree entirely. It is of course important for manufacturing and other parts of industry that we achieve stability for the long term. That is precisely why we took the measures in the Budget to curb the deficit; it is also why we have taken action on interest rates, so as to make absolutely sure that we squeeze any inflation out of the system. We must not go back to the time that followed the last Conservative boom. When it went bust, interest rates were at 15 per cent. for a year and mortgage rates were above 15 per cent. for six months or more. I never want to go back to the days of that Tory boom and bust.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Prime Minister perhaps visit Cornwall later this year? If so, I hope that he will not fall ill, because if he does he will find that he is 40 minutes away from an accident and emergency
    338
    unit—that is the average. He will also find that cottage hospitals across the county are facing permanent closure this winter because of this year's cash shortfalls. Does he agree that it makes no sense to close hospitals now if what he says about increased Government funding next year, and thereafter, is right? [9746]
    The Prime Minister: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that many hospitals face a very difficult situation, but as I told the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) earlier, it is important to put the public finances on a stable footing. There is fresh money coming into the national health service, not just next year but this year, at this very moment, as a result of cuts in bureaucracy and other changes. In their Budget submission to us, the Liberal Democrats asked us to put an extra £500 million or £600 million into the NHS: we have put double that amount into it.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Scotland warmly welcome the White Paper on devolution? Does he plan to come to Scotland and spend some time in Midlothian? We would welcome him there to the yes, yes campaign—he would certainly get a yes, yes vote for his visit.
    The Prime Minister: I very much look forward to taking part in the campaign for Scottish devolution. It is important that Scotland should have the chance of a greater say in its own affairs. I am delighted, too, that the Conservative party has now said that it will abide by the verdict of the referendums. That gives us the chance to ensure that the people of Scotland and Wales get their say and that we can put the constitution on a proper, secure, modern footing for the 21st century.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does the Prime Minister intend to continue appointing Members of this House who represent Scottish constituencies as Ministers with responsibility for English matters? [9747]
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, all Members of the House are treated equally—that is, should be, and will remain, the position. Possibly the most authoritative statement on the subject came from a former Conservative Prime Minister in the early 1960s, when the issue of Stormont was raised. He made it quite clear why all Members of Parliament should be treated equally.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister accept the thanks of my constituents for a job well started, and their wish that he should enjoy a well-deserved summer break—[Interruption.] Despite the jeers from the Opposition, I am sure that everyone agrees that he ought to enjoy a good summer holiday. When he comes back, however, will he look at the problems that came up at the Earth summit—in particular, the difficulties of persuading the United States and the major oil companies to do something about global warming? Will he also consider the need to agree on effective targets at the Kyoto conference? [9748]
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes for the holiday and I hope that everyone has a good holiday. It is obviously very important that the Kyoto conference is a success. There is now a better chance of that happening as a result of the UN General Assembly special session. My hon. Friend will know that the European Union has committed itself to very tough targets for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. I was delighted by the recent speech of President Clinton, which presaged a different attitude on the part of the United States. If it is possible to do so, we should get out of Kyoto a set of binding limits that allow us to take the measures necessary to put our environment on a stable footing for the long term.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I ask the Prime Minister to clarify an answer that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is perfectly all right for a Minister who is a major shareholder in one of our leading energy companies to lead Government policy on gas liberalisation in the
    340
    European Community, or will he give an undertaking that such obvious conflicts of interest, for as long as the Minister has to hold those shares, will not now take place? [9749]
    The Prime Minister: Both the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition should have noticed the more serious Members on the Opposition Benches shaking their heads as they were speaking. We are following precisely the procedures that have always been laid down. There is no conflict of interest and my noble Friend has followed precisely the advice of the permanent secretary at the DTI. There has been no impropriety whatever. If there is any evidence of that, let it be produced, but five times his right hon. Friend failed to produce it.
    We all know exactly what the game is here. Because, under the previous Government, there were allegations proven of misconduct, the Opposition want to smear the new Government and try to pretend that all politics is the same. Well, all politics is not the same and this Labour Government is not that old Tory Government.

Criminal Justice
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about improving the criminal justice system.
This morning, a major survey of crime victimisation in 11 industrialised countries was published. According to that survey, England and Wales top the league for robbery, for assaults, for burglary and for car crime. The results of the survey confirm the degree to which, in this country over the past two decades, crime has become an everyday experience. Yet, while crime has soared, the criminal justice system has become less effective. Over the past 18 years, crime has doubled, but the numbers convicted of those crimes have fallen by a third.
My overriding priority is to secure the safety of the public. The survey published this morning shows how far we have to go to do just that, but we have already embarked on reform of the Crown Prosecution Service and in this Session we will be putting our crime and disorder Bill before Parliament. The Bill will tackle anti-social behaviour, particularly from young offenders, which makes a misery of the lives of so many law-abiding people of our country. Today, I am announcing other steps in the long-overdue process of establishing an effective criminal justice system.
First, there are delays. Delays clog up the system and currently 12,000 prisoners are waiting on remand. When cases take too long to come to trial, taxpayers' money is wasted and the link between crime and punishment is broken. We have to improve the speed and efficiency of the criminal justice system. In particular, we are pledged to halve the time it takes to get persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence.
Very late in the day, the previous Government commissioned a review of delay. When that review, the Narey report, was published in February, I described it as showing the "neglect and complacency" of the then Government
"in their running of the criminal justice system"—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 433.]
I will act on the Narey report. One of the most striking benefits should come from implementing new arrangements for case preparation that will enable many straightforward guilty plea cases to be disposed of within a day or two of charge. That will help to revive the concept of summary justice on which the magistrates court system was founded—local justice delivered in a quick, fair and straightforward way.
Further details of my response to the Narey report will be given in a written answer to the House today.
To combat further delay, existing custody time limits will be enforced more effectively and we shall set new statutory time limits for the preparation of both adult and young offender cases. I also want to strengthen the ability of magistrates courts to manage cases more effectively.
We shall introduce tougher bail conditions to deter defendants from abusing their bail.
I intend to implement the provisions in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 under which magistrates will hear an indication of plea before deciding
342
whether a case needs to go to the Crown court. That will enable magistrates to deal quickly with defendants who plead guilty.
Our manifesto promised
"an effective sentencing system … to ensure greater consistency and stricter punishment for serious repeat offenders."
We are therefore proposing that judges in the Court of Appeal should prepare sentencing guidelines for all the main criminal offences.
Prison is necessary for those whose crimes and behaviour require it. Before the end of this year, I will implement section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, providing automatic life sentences for second-time serious sexual and violent offenders. The crime and disorder Bill will provide for extended supervision of other sexual and violent offenders after their release from prison.
Provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Act setting minimum sentences for persistent burglars and drug dealers were significantly improved by Labour amendments, which will give judges sufficient discretion to avoid injustice. In the light of that, I therefore intend to implement the mandatory minimum seven-year sentence for third-time drug traffickers later this year.
We shall consider implementing the three-year minimum sentence for third-time domestic burglars in the light of resources and the Prison Service's capacity, as the previous Government proposed. The previous Administration's plans meant that this provision was unlikely to have any appreciable effect until some time in 2001.
As promised in our manifesto, courts will be required to explain, when sentencing, what the sentence means in practice. They should state the time to be spent in prison, the period of supervision after release and the period during which the offender might be recalled to prison.
These requirements will allow the victim, the offender and the public to understand the true nature of the sentence. They are superior to the complex provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, constructed by the previous Government, which we criticised in opposition and which we do not intend to implement.
On custodial sentences for young offenders, the courts need a more coherent and flexible set of powers to lock up that small group of persistent young offenders who wreak havoc in their communities. As I announced on 3 July, the courts will have available to them from April 1998 the secure training order. We are also proposing to give the youth court the power to order the secure remand of such offenders.
Ninety-four per cent. of convicted offenders are dealt with in the community, and all but a tiny handful of those who are imprisoned return to the community at the end of their sentence. Ensuring the effectiveness of community punishments, and of community supervision for released prisoners, is therefore of the utmost importance.
The courts must have confidence that community punishments are administered correctly. Offenders must receive their punishments in full. If they refuse to comply, they must be brought back to court. Enforcement must improve. The No. 1 priority of the probation service is—and must be—to protect the public.
There should be nothing soft whatever about community punishment. It is absurd that a community penalty requires an offender's consent, and that requirement will be brought to an end.

343
I also want to strengthen the credibility of probation supervision. I am looking at a number of issues, including the scope to take away the passports of those on community punishments, making it impossible for them to travel abroad for the duration of their sentence. Recent trials of electronic tagging have proved remarkably successful. In order to build on this, the three pilot areas in Norfolk, Manchester and Berkshire will each be extended to neighbouring counties to cover at least twice the population. I shall also pilot tagging for those on bail as well for fine defaulters, persistent petty offenders and juveniles.
As the whole House knows, there is a clear link between crime, drugs and disorder. Areas with high levels of disorder have four times the level of violent crime as other areas. That is why we shall bring in community safety orders in the crime and disorder Bill to provide tough, effective sanctions against such neighbourhood disorder. Moreover, a new drug testing and treatment order will be a further powerful community punishment to help break the vicious circle of drug dependency and crime.
We are already reviewing the probation service and its relationship to the Prison Service. Those two services should work together more effectively to protect the public through integrated programmes both in prison and in the community. I have also announced a new diploma in probation studies, focusing on the vital role of the probation service in protecting the public and reducing crime. The probation service is a profession in its own right. Probation training should therefore no longer be linked to social work education.
The use of the fine has declined in recent years, despite its good record on discouraging reoffending. Concerns about current enforcement procedures are being addressed by a working group led by the Lord Chancellor's Department. We will consider any changes that might be necessary to ensure that the fine retains its proper place in the courts' sentencing armoury.
We shall also do more to help victims of crime. The Prime Minister announced an extra £1 million a year for Victim Support, making the total £13 million. We are reviewing ways of protecting victims and vulnerable witnesses from defendants who try to bully them into silence.
As I said, the present high levels of crime and disorder will take time to reverse. We are making a start by tackling crime at its roots. We must intervene early to change the behaviour of young offenders. We shall make it clear that the aim of the youth justice system is to protect the public and reduce reoffending. A national network of youth offender teams will implement much tougher regimes of community interventions. A new national board for youth justice will oversee change.
The whole House knows that crime breeds when individuals are left without a stake in society. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's welfare-to-work programme for the young and long-term unemployed should reduce both the temptation and the opportunity for crime. Getting a job is the best thing that any ex-offender can do. I am therefore pleased to announce that all young people leaving prison will have direct access to our new deal for the young unemployed. After an initial gateway period
344
starting immediately they leave prison, during which they will receive intensive job search assistance, ex-offenders will be guaranteed a place on one of the four new deal options.
In the 18 years since 1979, crime has doubled, yet the number of criminals convicted by the courts has dropped by a third. Such a record of failure cannot easily be reversed. This afternoon, however, I have outlined the first steps towards building a criminal justice system which the public have a right to expect—a system that is fair, swift and effective in tackling crime and disorder. I commend the proposals to the House.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in letting me have an advance look at his statement. It is a long statement, full of detailed proposals and, in the time available, he will understand if I do not touch on all the points that he raised, not least because I do not want overly to burden the House. I assure him, however, that when he produces a Bill, we shall examine it in great detail.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of large parts of Conservative Government policy. May I tell him, as he would not have been able to see, that, judging from the expression on the faces of many hon. Members behind him, his proposals will get a warmer reception on the Opposition Benches.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the crime rate rose faster in each decade between the end of the second world war and 1979 than in the past 18 years? Will he publish the appropriate figures? Does he also agree that the crime rate has dropped by 10 per cent. over the past four years, reversing a trend of 40 years under both Governments? Does he recognise that a reduction of about half a million crimes a year means millions fewer victims? Why can he not welcome that?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the last international crime survey in 1992 covering 20 countries found that there was less chance of being murdered or violently or sexually assaulted in Britain than in many other western countries? Why did he not refer to the survey of 18 OECD countries in 1993–95, which showed that England and Wales had the largest fall in recorded crime?
Although I welcome much of what the right hon. Gentleman has announced, is he aware that the public will be disappointed that he is taking such a relaxed and disinterested stance on house burglary? Why does he not recognise that burglary is an invasion of privacy and possessions and frequently a destroyer of peace of mind and quality of life?
Why does the Secretary of State not think that burglars who commit three offences should not be given a minimum sentence of three years, or is his criminal policy simply being dictated by the Treasury? Instead of dithering, reviewing and contemplating, will he now commit to introducing that sensible measure on the sentencing of repeat burglars by 1999, as we were committed to do?
Even on tagging, the right hon. Gentleman equivocates. What has caused him to accept the principle of tagging, when the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), a Front-Bench Labour spokesman on the Criminal Justice Bill, said in Standing Committee A on 18 December 1990:
"Electronic monitoring is a dangerous and irrelevant concept. It is wrong in principle … It has enormous implications for civil liberties"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 December 1990; c. 274.]

345
Given Labour Members' objection "in principle" to tagging, why should the House now believe the Secretary of State's latest plans? Is this just another Labour policy likely to be jettisoned?
Speaking of jettisoning principles, does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Prime Minister describing secure training orders as "a sham"? Whom are we to believe? Who is trying to make the public feel good, without being willing to act in the public interest?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I welcome his new commitment to tougher sentences for violent and sexual offences? Is he aware that we will also support him as he advances our proposals for repeat drug offenders?
In 1995, the right hon. Gentleman called our proposals
"a bizarre mixture of complacency and desperation".
Is he aware that his hon. Friend the present Minister of State claimed in 1996 that they were "a farce"? Is he also aware that we welcome the Government's conversion to the public interest, which we have long promoted, but that we shall closely monitor his application?
Does the Secretary of State accept that we will support any new, useful attempts to tackle delay, and that it was the previous Government who introduced custody time limits and set up the Narey inquiry, on which he is to act?
Parts of today's statement will give some encouragement to the public. However, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise also that it will be widely welcomed by burglars, from whom a threat has been lifted? Does he realise that he may soon be deemed partially responsible by the victims of burglars, whose experience of that crime the right hon. Gentleman refuses to take seriously?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman shows the same levels of competence in dealing with this statement as he demonstrated as chairman of the Conservative party in taking it to its greatest defeat this century. He talked about the reception given to our proposals. The proposals that I announced today are based on our manifesto, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the British people—not least because of its law and order measures.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions, and I shall do my best to answer them. He made some ridiculous claims about the provisions of section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 relating to repeat burglars. He implied that his Administration were committed to bringing that section into force by October 1999. They did nothing of the kind—indeed, the commitment went backwards.
In April 1996, in the White Paper "Protecting the Public", the Government gave, as "an example" of how their plans might be achieved,
"taking account of … the need to provide additional prison places and the resource implications"—
exactly what I said—that the proposals for minimum sentences for domestic burglars might be introduced "in October 1999". However, those provisions would not have had any effect until 2001.
By March 1997, the Government's commitment had been reduced even more. I have the official Home Office press statement that was issued when the Crime (Sentences) Bill received Royal Assent on 21 March 1997. It states:
"Notes for editors. None of the provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 have immediate effect. No dates have yet been set for implementation."
346
The right hon. Gentleman skips about with a series of figures, trying to suggest that the public's understanding of the record of the previous Administration from 1979 regarding the doubling of crime and the great increase in victimisation is somehow wrong. He reminded me of Pol Pot—trying to set year zero at the date that suited him. I shall be delighted to publish all the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—many are already in the Library, and others I published when I was in opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the OECD report. That report shows that, of 16 western countries, England and Wales had the largest increase in crime between 1987 and 1994. I shall put that report in the Library. There can be no gainsaying the survey published today that shows that the people of England and Wales are more likely to be the victims of burglary, robbery, assault, theft from cars and theft of cars than those in any of the other 11 countries mentioned.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman referred to delays. I am very glad that he approves of our plans to reduce delays in courts. However, he did not acknowledge—and he should—that, despite the fact that the number of people convicted by the courts has fallen by a third in the past 18 years, thanks to the incompetence of the previous Administration, delays have worsened by five weeks. It took nine weeks to get a case to court in 1984, and it now takes 14 weeks. That is scandalous.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Many of us are appalled by the overcrowding in prisons, and are therefore attracted by the arguments of the Offenders Tag Association. Against the background of the very constructive letter written to me on this subject by the Minister responsible for prisons, will my right hon. Friend comment on the view that, in Manchester, Reading and Norfolk, probation service care is received only spasmodically and surreptitiously, and that through-care is important? What is the Government's policy in relation to tagging in the field of back-end release—that is, curtailing the sentences of first-time offenders under the supervision of the night curfew?
Mr. Straw: We have no proposals on my hon. Friend's last point at present, but we are certainly ready to consider proposals.
My hon. Friend asks about the practice of tagging. The analysis of the experiments in the three pilot areas shows that they are 80 per cent. successful and, whatever original concerns there may have been about tagging, there is no question—I am happy to say this—but that they have proved more successful than many expected and can make community punishments much tougher and more effective.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Home Secretary realise that we will welcome measures to reduce the delay in court procedures and to strengthen community sentences, including tagging where that can be part of an effective programme for the offender concerned? But how many additional prison places will be required for the sentencing proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman has committed himself, and do the figures that he will produce assume that one in five criminals will be deterred by the existence of mandatory sentences,

347
given that there is no objective basis for that assumption which has been made by the Home Office since the time of the previous Government?
Is the right hon. Gentleman now beginning to regret joining in the hue and cry for longer prison sentences, which was led by the previous Home Secretary, which was based on no commitment of resources? There were no prison places for all these people and were the 20 new prisons to be built, that would be at the expense of the policing and crime prevention which saves victims from suffering crimes in the first place.
Mr. Straw: The detailed answers to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman asks were given in "The Audit of the Prison Service" and its annexe published last Friday by me and placed in the Library of the House. It contains detailed analysis of the methodology used by the research and statistics section of the Home Office to make its assessment of the rise in the prison population. I speak from memory, but I do not think that he will find included in that the rather arbitrary assumption—he is quite right—that one in five prisoners would somehow be deterred by some of the provisions.
The effects during the next few years of the provisions that I have announced to implement sections 2 and 3 of the Crime (Sentences) Act are limited, because those offenders are likely to expect custodial sentences in any event. The issue is how long those sentences should be and, in respect of serious violent and sexual offenders, if they are released from their life sentence whether they should be subject to life licence.
The right hon. Gentleman makes the general point about the hue and cry in favour of longer prison sentences. I and my party are in favour of the appropriate sentence. We disagreed about this in opposition and we may still disagree, but it is fair and appropriate that if sexual and violent offenders offend a second time, they should be subject to an automatic life sentence, bearing in mind the fact that the tariff will be set by the trial judge and the release date by the Parole Board. For traffickers in class A drugs, a seven-year minimum sentence is, in normal circumstances, appropriate.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and I assure him that Labour Members, and certainly the British people, will receive it with acclamation. Having said that, let me be more specific in my question. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that his measures to tackle disorder and anti-social crime, especially in industrial areas, will be fairly specific? Can he assure me that his measures will, in the main, resolve most of the torment and misery that have been inflicted on our neighbourhood communities by such crime?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. Like him, I believe that the proposals will be widely welcomed throughout the country. While I was making my statement, there was muttering from the Opposition Benches to the effect that all the proposals had been invented by the Conservative party when in government. I wish that they had. Had the Conservative Government accepted our proposals on, for example, youth justice and disorder instead of dismissing them as
348
irrelevant and unnecessary, persistent young offenders would now be dealt with and the misery that our voters suffer in estate after estate would have been ended.
The proposals that we will bring forward in the crime and disorder Bill, in respect of both youth justice and disorder, will be specific, and I am in no doubt that, once they have been brought into force, they will help to relieve the terrible burden that many of our communities now suffer as a result of such disorder.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that the fall in crime over four consecutive years is real? If so, will he congratulate the former Home Secretary? If not, will he tell the House what alternative measures he proposes to adopt? I listened carefully to him. Will he confirm that he does not intend to implement our "honesty in sentencing" proposals? If that is so, what will be the effect on the prison population? Will there be a decrease?
Will the Home Secretary give the British people an assurance that the question of resources will not prevent the Government from keeping in prison those whom the courts judge deserve a custodial sentence, regardless of the fact that that may lead to an increase in the numbers in prison? Will he make sure that there is an adequate prison building programme under the private finance initiative to deal with that increase?
Mr. Straw: I am not sure why the right hon. Lady invites me to congratulate her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on any issue, given that such words of approbation never passed her lips.
I made it clear when the crime figures were published that I was pleased that recorded crime was going down rather than up. However, the previous Government must be judged on their overall record. Year zero was not 1992: it was 1979. The facts are reflected in the defeat that the Conservatives suffered at the election, not least as a result of their complacency on law and order. The public did not believe the complacent words that they heard from Ministers, because they collided with their own, very different, experience.
The right hon. Lady is right that we are not implementing those sections embedded in the Crime (Sentences) Act that deal with the Conservatives' "honesty in sentencing" proposals. I made that clear when we were in opposition. She asked me about the effect on prison numbers. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), sitting two along from her, made it clear, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, that the "honesty in sentencing" proposals were supposed to have a neutral effect on the prison population. They said that in their White Paper, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it on Second Reading. Those proposals were so immensely complicated that they had to be changed again and again.
I share the view of the Lord Chief Justice. I made it clear two years ago that the public and victims should be much clearer about the effect of a sentence. That can be done in a much simpler way under the proposals that I have announced.
The right hon. Lady said time and again when she was in government that any public service must be paid for. The Government stand ready to meet the increased

349
demand on prison places. For that reason, I announced last Friday additional spending on the prison population of £43 million, and I have already agreed plans to build two further new prisons, which were in train under the previous Administration.
Ann Keen: May I first comment on what the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Dr. Mawhinney) said? My colleagues were quiet while we were listening to the Home Secretary. We do not engage in anti-social behaviour: we are mature Members of Parliament.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the initiative to help young people who leave prison to enter the jobs market, which is crucial to crime prevention. Does the survey refer to confidence in the British police?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. Indeed, the survey refers to confidence in the British police. Although confidence in the criminal justice system has fallen, confidence in the police remains high, both historically and by international standards.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The House will welcome any effective steps that the Home Secretary takes to reduce the delay in matters coming to trial. Until we see the right hon. Gentleman's response to the Narey report, it will be difficult for us to judge how effective his proposals are likely to be. Does he accept, however, that he could take at least two steps? First, he could appoint more full-time or part-time stipendiary magistrates. Secondly—this was canvassed in the Narey inquiry—he could contemplate a reduction in the number and categories of cases that are tried before a jury in the Crown court.
May I revert to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)? Does the Home Secretary accept that there will be widespread disappointment about his departure from the proposition that sentences should mean what they say? That is what is meant by the phrase "honesty in sentencing". Is the right hon. Gentleman's objection to that policy one of principle, or is it based on his fear that it will lead to an increase in the prison population for which there is no Treasury cover?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about our proposals in respect of delay. He made two suggestions. Increased use of stipendiary magistrates—which was indeed canvassed in the Narey inquiry—is principally a matter for the Lord Chancellor, but we are considering it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested a reduction in the number and categorisation of cases. That, too, is a sensible proposal, to which we are giving further thought.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong to suggest that I had said that we were not proceeding with proposals to make sentences mean what they say. One of our objections to the Conservatives' version of honesty in sentencing is that we would have ended up with very confused sentencing. The Conservatives sought to introduce a new system in which two years would mean two years, but—as the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) could tell the House at length—
350
our consideration in Committee established that the reality would be nothing like that. There would be discounts for this, and premiums for that.
It would be a waste of time and effort to introduce such a system; it would be far better to build on the existing system—I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman played a part in its introduction when producing the Criminal Justice Act 1991—and say, by way of practice direction, that the courts should spell out exactly what a sentence means. That is what we intend to do.
Mr. Keith Vaz: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement. His proposals will be warmly welcomed by the electorate, especially on housing estates that suffer greatly from crime—such as the one in Leicester that he visited recently.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important not just to have more effectiveness and consistency in sentencing, but to monitor that effectiveness and consistency? It is no longer good enough merely to have guidelines; we need to ensure that those guidelines are followed properly.
Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for what he has said. As a great deal of evidence from the Home Office and the Prison Reform Trust showed recently, considerable and rather inexplicable data show substantial inconsistency between courts in respect of similar offences and offenders. That is something which the whole system—including the Home Office—needs to address.
Mr. David Maclean: I assure the Home Secretary that I would not dream of comparing him to Pol Pot. Following his performance this afternoon, it would be infinitely more appropriate to compare him to St. Paul on the way to Damascus.
I warmly welcome the bulk of the policies that the Home Secretary has announced and his apparent conversion to policies that my colleagues and I have espoused in the Home Office during the past three years. He said, however, that he was going to implement the important Narey report. Can he tell us whether there are any significant threads in this seamless robe that he intends to unravel—any proposals that he intends not to implement?
Mr. Straw: As far as I know, we are implementing nearly all the Narey report, consistent with what I told the House when the report came before us in February. There is already a detailed answer in the Vote Office—I would detain the House for probably half an hour if I read it out—which gives further information about each recommendation, and I think that it will have the right hon. Gentleman's approval.
Ms Christine Russell: As one who has been a magistrate for the past 17 years, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the measures that he has outlined. I must say that I listened with amazement to what the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Dr. Mawhinney) had to say. From my 17 years personal experience of such service, particularly in youth courts, I

351
know that the current system is costly and not very effective. More than anything else it is slow. It is not at all unknown for a young offender who has been arrested at Christmas not to arrive in court until the summer holidays. Exactly what measures does my right hon. Friend have in mind for speeding up the system in the youth courts?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. As she knows, the policies that I have announced were partly informed by an important conference that was held in Chester, in her constituency, last August. At that conference, she and many other colleagues brought to my attention many of the serious defects in the current system of youth justice as it operated under the previous Administration.
Our crime and disorder Bill will contain a series of proposals to speed up the way in which the youth justice and adult justice systems operate. It will do that by setting much clearer and enforceable time limits on the various stages, by implementing the proposals in the Narey report and, for example, in respect of persistent young offenders, by including a definition of such offenders and by ensuring that, having been identified, they are fast-tracked through the courts.
One specific change that we shall make will be to reverse the judgment in R. v. Khan, which has the perverse effect of requiring courts to delay proceedings in respect of a case that is ready first in time until all the other cases are ready. That is one of the reasons for the ludicrous situation that the worse the crimes an offender commits and the more often they are committed, the longer it takes to get him or her to court.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: The Home Secretary has rightly said that he is concerned about delays, which are a big problem in our courts. I should like to make four, I hope helpful, suggestions from the point of view of somebody at the sharp end. The Home Secretary will know that I have more criminal judicial experience as a stipendiary and as a recorder than many others.
There are three problems at magistrates court level. The first is the ability of defendants to get more and more adjournments without good reason. The second is the delay involved as a result of introducing the right to advance information and the Crown Prosecution Service not producing it for weeks. The third is that after the mode of trial is determined, the current requirement by the Crown Prosecution Service is for a gap of six weeks before it serves papers. Those three matters need to be looked at.
Finally, the Home Secretary knows, as we all know, that it is ludicrous that some petty theft and petty assault cases are currently going to the Crown court at defendants' election at a cost of £8,000 a day. That clogs up the Crown court system immensely. In addition to what I have said, there is a powerful argument for restricting the right to a Crown court trial and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, for the appointment of many more metropolitan "stipes". There is plenty of research material in the Lord Chancellor's Department, with which
352
I hope the Home Secretary will liaise carefully, to show that "stipes" get through business very quickly. I hope that those suggestions are slightly helpful.
Mr. Straw: They are indeed, and I shall deal briefly with each of them. There has been a substantial increase in the number and average length of adjournments. I think that they have been encouraged by perverse incentives in the legal aid system. It is also noteworthy that stipendiaries deal more briskly with requests for adjournments than some lay magistrates, and I am sure that matter will be taken on board by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
The hon. Gentleman is right about advance disclosure. In my judgment, those rules, too, have sometimes been abused by legally aided solicitors who try to milk the system. There are inefficiencies in the mode of trial system, including some by the Crown Prosecution Service. They are being addressed by the review which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has established and which is being conducted by Sir lain Glidewell.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to agree to one of the proposals of the Narey report that was not accepted at the time either by the previous Government or by my party—a proposal for a restriction on the right to elect for trial. My own view, which was also the previous Government's view, was that we should wait to see how the implementation of section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, on plea before venue, worked out before revisiting that matter. Two thirds of the transfers of cases from magistrates courts to Crown courts are made not by election but by decision made by magistrates before election.
Dr. George Turner: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will receive a warm welcome in my constituency, especially in King's Lynn? The remarks made to me since my election lead me to believe that that applies in particular to the clarity that my right hon. Friend brings to his intention to deliver on our promises to tackle the problems of disorder and anti-social behaviour. Can he reassure the House that in doing that, he will take account of the real difficulty in bringing prosecutions and other actions in that connection, because of the major problems involved in persuading witnesses to give evidence when they can so readily be threatened by those among whom they live?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. From what he has told me, I know about the serious problems that exist even in a relatively peaceful town such as King's Lynn. I know that his constituents have encountered those problems and are looking forward to the changes that I have announced today.
Witness intimidation is serious and is getting worse. We shall set up a review to consider changes in the law and in practice to protect witnesses better. My hon. Friend has drawn our attention to a major problem, which we all have to tackle carefully.
Mr. Bob Russell: Looking at Government policies as a whole, what would the Home Secretary consider a measure of success in being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime? Would it be fewer people in prison or more people in prison? If more, how many new prisons does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be required for his millennium project?

353
As for youth sentencing, does the Home Secretary intend to provide more boot camps such as the one in Colchester, bearing in mind the fact that the average cost per inmate per year is £31,500, as opposed to £17,500 in a typical institution? My question is: is it money or is it sentencing that the right hon. Gentleman is after?
Hon. Members:Guilty or not guilty?
Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have to tell him that I do not see issues of law and order in quite such an eccentric way. My purpose, as I told the House earlier, is to secure better safety for the public. It is on that outcome that we shall be judged. The number of people who end up in prison is a function of how many commit crimes and how many are caught, and of entirely independent decisions made by magistrates and judges. I am not arguing with those decisions. I should like a world in which fewer people appeared before the courts who needed to be sent to prison—and I should like to be judged on that, too.
The hon. Gentleman asked for figures. Future projections of the prison population can be found in "The Audit of the Prison Service", which I laid before the House last Friday. I should be happy to send him an autographed copy, if that would assist his reading.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the young offenders camp, the military prison at Colchester. As we made clear at the first Question Time that I took, we have accepted the idea that the experiment ought to run for a year. It would be absurd to abandon it halfway through, and would waste money without producing any information. We shall assess it after it has run for a year.
Caroline Flint: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Having in the past few weeks spent an evening on patrol with officers from the Edlington police in Don Valley, I am sure that they will welcome what he has said about consistent sentencing policy and stiff penalties for those who commit second offences of a violent or sexual nature.
What emerged from that evening was the fear among my constituents of people who have stolen from their homes, yet who then come out into the streets and walk around bold as brass, as if they had got away with it. The survey clearly shows a lack of confidence in measures such as community safety orders and other community punishments. In moving towards community punishments, which have a vital role, how can we ensure that victims feel confident that they would be best served if such punishments were imposed?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. The purpose of community safety orders is to provide swift and effective ways of securing injunctions against those who commit persistent disorder and the kind of intimidation that she describes, who are not dealt with effectively by magistrates or Crown courts at the moment. The establishment of community safety orders, with more intensive policing of the kind she has described and other provisions of the kind I have announced this afternoon—including, for example, parental responsibility orders, which may be attached to community safety orders—should enable law-abiding people and the police to regain
354
control of their areas. Those people who try to wreck the peace and quiet of those areas will be put where they belong if they continue to do so—in prison.
Mr. Damian Green: While joining my right hon. and hon. Friends in welcoming the vast tracts of the Home Secretary's statement which build on the policies implemented by the previous Government, may I urge him a few more feet down the right road? When will he finish his review on mandatory minimum sentences? Will he implement mandatory minimum sentences for repeat burglars? Is he aware that, if he cannot give a completion date for the review, many will regard his tough talk—regrettably—as a mere sham?
Mr. Straw: The position that I have announced today is the same as that announced by the previous Government in their White Paper, presented to the House in April 1996, which said:
"The Government's objective is to implement the various proposals, taking account of the Parliamentary timetable, the need to provide additional prison places and the resource implications."
It is a question not of a review, but of whether it is appropriate to take action, bearing in mind those considerations.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, as the fear of crime and of anti-social behaviour is, regrettably, one of the worst problems in this country in the 1990s, his statement will be very much welcomed? He also knows that a large proportion of crime is drug related. How can we find out the true percentage of crimes which are drug related? What steps can we take to tackle the root causes and stop the wide misuse of drugs, which is growing throughout the country?
Mr. Straw: Drugs lie behind a large amount of crime—not just drug crime specifically, but burglary and theft. The Home Office has conducted a study to try to ascertain the precise relationship between drug and alcohol abuse and those who commit crimes. The preliminary results are alarming and will be published in due course. We are taking other active steps to strengthen the arrangements which the previous Government commendably set in place to improve co-ordination in the fight against crime. A UK drug director will shortly be appointed and, as I have announced this afternoon, we intend that a drug treatment and testing order should be available to the courts as a community punishment to take account and make use of mandatory drug testing.
Mr. Nigel Evans: May I congratulate the Home Secretary on many of his familiar proposals? Could he say more about the removal of passports from young offenders? There can be few things more distressing to victims of crime and others than to read in a newspaper that a young thug or young offender on probation has been taken on safari to Africa or a cruise in Egypt. Taking away his passport would stop such schemes. Will he look also at domestic probation "punishments" with particular reference to an incident in which a lad was taken to Butlin's for two weeks with a probation officer—during which time the young offender was stealing from other residents' chalets?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his approbation of my proposals, which are familiar because

355
we made them before the election. The proposals were voted for. It is also familiar that our proposals for youth justice and disorder were dismissed by the Conservative party as unnecessary at the time. I am glad that it has made a Damascene conversion.
As for passports, at the moment, those who are subject to community supervision are not supposed to go abroad except in "exceptional and compassionate circumstances", but I have discovered that there are no arrangements for enforcing that. That is why I have asked for urgent work to be put in hand to ensure that when people are subject to such punishments, they literally cannot go abroad without breaking many other laws.
I entirely share the hon. Member's view about the inappropriateness of sending those who are subject not only to treatment but to punishment on what appears to be a pleasure holiday. Nothing has damaged confidence in community punishments more than that and I want an end to it.
Gillian Merron: I welcome the statement and I know that it will be very much welcomed by my constituents, whom it will show the true determination to act which they believe is long overdue. My experience is that fear of crime is one of the most insidious features of our current daily lives. Many people are kept prisoners in their homes because of it. It is unacceptable that my constituents have to approach me with their fears of constant harassment in their homes, rubbish thrown over the back yard, verbal abuse, shopping bags snatched and, most recently, an elderly gentleman being knocked to the ground and his glasses trodden on.
Does my right hon. Friend feel that we need a comprehensive approach to the conditions in which crime breeds, in an attempt to tackle crime? Is it a comprehensive approach that we need?
Mr. Straw: Yes, it is. My hon. Friend's description of the problems that some of her constituents face underlines the need for a strategy of zero tolerance that tackles disorder as well as crime. A recent Home Office survey showed that, in areas of instability of the sort she described, there is not only more disorder, but a four times greater chance of people being the victims of violent crime. Disorder leads to crime. Both have to be tackled.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: While I welcome much of the Home Secretary's statement—leaving aside his Pauline conversion, which I do not want to go into—to pick up on what has just been said, there appears to be ample evidence that the seeds of delinquency are sown in early childhood. A number of surveys, particularly in the United States, have shown that provision targeted towards those most at risk at a very young age produces substantial knock-on effects 10 years down the road.
The last person to take an interest was the then right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon when he was Home Secretary, but because that subject does not necessarily enjoy immediate electoral appeal, it is often bypassed. I have always been convinced that a twin-track approach on both those problems will be necessary if the causes of crime are to be tackled. I urge the Home Secretary to consider that and, in particular, whether any
356
money can be made available through a Home Office budget as well as through other services to deal with that issue.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right and makes some important remarks. The evidence from the headstart programme analysis in America shows that effective nursery education is better at deterring offending behaviour later in the teenage years than anything else. That is one reason why we are committed to expanding nursery education. I have no doubt about that. He is also right to say that it is inevitable, perhaps, that Governments of both persuasions have had to go for more short-term solutions because there is a problem of juvenile crime there now that we have to deal with, but I accept what he says.
As for money, that would fall to the Department of Education and Employment and I regret to tell him that, since we are following the previous Administration's public expenditure survey control levels for the next two years, there is no money available for that project.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I think that it was the chief constable of Cornwall who said, "If you cure the drug problem, you can halve your crime problem." I am interested in the introduction of the seven-year sentence, but it is the drug traffickers who worry me. Drug dealers will certainly always take the chance of seven years, and the traffickers, who will put up the price, will make them do it even more. I am worried about the trafficking side in the light of my right hon. Friend's statement. Has he anything to say about that?
Mr. Straw: Drug traffickers are among the most evil people in our society. As I have seen as Home Secretary in the past three months, their ruthless ability to break every law in the land, intimidate and commit acts of violence in pursuit of their trade has no limits. It is appalling and such people need the most severe punishment. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the seven-year sentence that I announced today, which will be implemented later this year, is a minimum. The maximum for drug trafficking is, I believe, life.
Mr. Norman Baker: Will the Home Secretary go slightly further than he did in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in respect of prison places? I ask not least because Lewes prison is in my constituency. I hope that, in the new spirit of co-operation between our parties, he will be able to respond positively. How many new prison places will be required as a consequence of his statement this afternoon? Is the £43 million to deal with existing overcrowding or is it intended also to cover the consequences of the statement?
It is absolutely right that criminals who need to be locked up to protect the public should be in prison, but what steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that those who should not be in prison—fine defaulters, for example—are released into the community, providing space for those who should be there?
Mr. Straw: The £43 million that I announced last Friday is to deal with existing overcrowding. We hope that the proposals that I have announced today will come

357
into force quickly, but that will not happen in the next few months, which is the time that that money is intended to cover.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect of my proposals on prison places. All the detail is in "The Audit of Prison Service Resources", which was published last Friday. I thought it right to publish it well in advance of this statement so that right hon. and hon. Members would have time to study it beforehand. From recollection, the prison population is estimated to rise to about 68,000—an extra 6,000 places—by early 1999. I should be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the audit.
The previous Government did a great deal of effective work in reducing the number of fine defaulters who were detained in prison, and we supported them in that. In any one day, there are now usually fewer than 100 prisoners who are there for fine default. I should like to put in place other measures for fine defaulters that we supported in the previous Parliament, but it must also be acknowledged that if people carry on defaulting, they will have to be sent to prison, because there is no ultimate alternative.
Mr. Mark Todd: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Obviously, justice hinges on catching criminals and convicting them, and a critical issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said, is that of obtaining witnesses and ensuring that they feel secure in giving evidence.
To do that, we must ensure that court facilities are appropriate, so that, for example, witnesses can be separated from offenders and their friends; that is a problem in Derby, and I should welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on it. Local justice is also important. Having to travel significant distances to court at inconvenient times of day is a disincentive to witnesses.
A critical issue in Derbyshire is the inequity of resources between it and the neighbouring constabularies. In Derbyshire, 20 per cent. more people have to be covered by a typical officer than in neighbouring counties.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the problem of witness intimidation. All Crown courts are now covered by witness services, but many magistrates courts are not. Some magistrates courts are, however, taking steps properly to separate prosecution from defence witnesses. For example, at Redditch there is a locally funded witness service that has been doing effective work. I hope that that example can be followed elsewhere.
The police grant is a new, mystical science which produces winners and losers. It is probably a better way of allocating resources than the system that went before, but, since resources are limited and will remain so under this Administration, for every winner under the police grant system there will be some losers, and I cannot but apologise for that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now bring the statement to a close.

Points of Order
4.34 pm
Mr. Humfrey Malins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to the Home Office and the Home Secretary. Have you had any application from a Home Office Minister to make a statement to the House about the crisis that could arise if hundreds of Somalis arrive by Eurostar at Waterloo claiming asylum? Many of them are bogus and have come from safe third countries. I understand that all are entitled to full benefits. They may continue arriving throughout the summer recess. Has any Minister suggested that the Government propose to take any action?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that a Home Office Minister, or any Minister, seeks to make a statement on that matter today.
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following my question yesterday, I have taken advice. Has the Minister of Transport asked you to allow him to come to the Dispatch Box to correct an inaccuracy at Question Time yesterday? I pointed out to him that unilateral action to ban bull bars would be illegal under European Union law. The Minister replied that it would not. It has since come to my attention that that is inaccurate, and that such action would be illegal under EU law. The Minister has, albeit inadvertently, misled the House. He should come to the Dispatch Box immediately to correct the inaccuracy.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Lady knows, I am not responsible for comments that Ministers make or policy commitments that they give. The hon. Lady is making not a point of order but a challenge to the Minister of Transport. She must find means other than points of order by which to pursue the matter with the Minister. Perhaps those on the Government Front Bench will make the Minister of Transport aware of the hon. Lady's comments today.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I do not usually take further points of order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in bull bars, but I will not allow a debate on them. I have answered the hon. Lady's point of order, which was reasonable.
Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Wales said that he would like to come to the House to make a statement, following the announcement by Roy Hughes yesterday that he was to be elevated to the House of Lords, and the article in the Western Mail which states that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) has repeated the allegation that he was offered a peerage to vacate his seat to make way for one of the Prime Minister's loyal supporters? That statement was then

359
refuted by the Secretary of State for Wales. Both of them cannot be telling the truth. Has the Secretary of State asked to come to the Dispatch Box to clarify the situation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain)rose—
Madam Speaker: Is the Minister seeking to make a further point of order before I respond?
Mr. Hain: Yes. May I suggest that this is yet another bogus and false point of order from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
Madam Speaker: I have not been told that a Minister seeks to make a statement, but it seems to me that I ought to make a statement and say that it is almost bucket and spade time for the House.

Companies (Political Funds)
4.37 pm
Mr. Roger Godsiff: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require ballots of shareholders of companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 in respect of proposed donations for political purposes; to define political purposes; to require political funds to be established for the payment of such donations; to specify how such political funds will be funded and the qualifications for receipt of donations; and for connected purposes.
Before we move on to our buckets and spades, I should like to move this motion.
The purpose of the Bill is to correct an anomaly in company law that has existed for far too long. The Bill contains four main provisions. First, it requires publicly quoted companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 to establish, after approval has been sought by a ballot of shareholders, separate political funds, should that company wish to make donations for political purposes.
Secondly, the Bill clearly defines political purposes as payments to any political party or any organisation that engages in promoting or campaigning for political parties. Thirdly, it defines a percentage of dividends payable to shareholders that can be put into a company political fund. Most important, it provides the facility for those shareholders who object to payment of part of their dividend into the company political fund to have the right not to contribute, and to receive the full value of their dividend payment.
Under the Companies Act 1985, directors must state in their annual report contributions of more than £200 made for political purposes. The report, together with the company's accounts, is laid before the shareholders at the annual meeting, and approved or rejected in its totality. If, however, any shareholder or group of shareholders wish to object to payments made by the company for political purposes, they have no option but to vote against the resolution to approve the report and accounts of the company.
Shareholders are therefore placed in an extremely difficult position should they disapprove of any payments made for political purposes by that company. Were they to reject the director's report and accounts, that would amount to a rejection of the commercial management of the company. If that company were listed, such action would result in a catastrophic fall in the company's share price, and could have serious commercial repercussions.
No shareholder who invests his money in a company for commercial reasons would wish to precipitate such a situation. Under current law, the shareholder would have little alternative but to act in that way if he profoundly disagreed with donations made by the company for political purposes.
Under current law, a dissatisfied shareholder could move a resolution at the company's annual meeting to censure the board for making any political donation. Such a course of action is costly and administratively difficult. For example, the resolution would have to be circulated to all shareholders, and the company could require the proposers of it to pay for the cost of circulating it. For that and other administrative reasons, shareholder resolutions are seldom submitted at annual meetings.

361
The purpose of the Bill is to rectify that anomaly by obliging companies that wish to make donations for political purposes to establish a political fund that is entirely separate from the commercial activities and accounts of the company. Shareholders will know how much of each dividend is paid into the company's political fund and what payments are made from the fund, and, if they wished, they would have the right to opt out from contributing part of their dividend payments to such a fund.
The central issue behind the Bill is the extension of shareholder democracy. After the privatisations and building society flotations, there are now between 16 million and 18 million individual shareholders in the United Kingdom. Not only are they shareholders: they are stakeholders in our economy. Those shareholders have the right to a say about how their money is spent if it is spent for purposes other than those for which it was invested, and spent on causes to which they may be deeply opposed.
Without express separate shareholder approval, boards of directors should not spend shareholders' moneys on non-commercial purposes. As I said, the Bill is about the extension of shareholder democracy. It is needed because the current situation is wholly inadequate as the means of protecting shareholders' rights.
The question of political donations has moved high up the political agenda. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to introducing a policy of transparency, and not before time. They are committed to dealing with donations from foreign sources. I commend the new leader of the Conservative party for announcing that his party will no longer accept foreign donations, such as those made by Mr. Asil Nadir.
It is time that publicly quoted companies operated according to clearly defined criteria which uphold the rights of their shareholders. Since 1967, companies have been obliged to disclose in their annual reports any gifts of moneys above £200 for political purposes. There has been no obligation on companies, however, to seek the prior approval of shareholders for such donations.
362
Between 1980 and 1991, 66 of the largest companies in the United Kingdom made political donations which totalled £13.6 million. I make no comment on the fact that 85 industrialists connected with those 66 companies received peerages or knighthoods during the same period.
I welcome the fact that a number of companies have of late decided to end their practice of making political donations. The fact remains, however, that, according to a limited survey of the top 300 United Kingdom companies, in 1995–96 more than £1.5 million was paid out by such companies for political purposes. The vast majority of those moneys were paid away with little or no regard to the wishes of individual shareholders.
My Bill would enhance the rights of millions of shareholders by allowing them to determine whether the companies in which they invest their money should be allowed to use part of their profits to engage in political activities. It would not deny any company the right to make a political donation, providing it has established a political fund with the approval of its shareholders. The Bill will enhance shareholder democracy, and as such I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Godsiff, Mr. Charles Clarke, Mr. Harry Cohen, Caroline Flint, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Marsha Singh, Mr. Denis MacShane, Mr. Phil Woolas, Ms Margaret Moran, Mr. Alan Keen.

Companies (Political Funds)
  COMPANIES (POLITICAL FUNDS)
  Mr. Roger Godsiff accordingly presented a Bill to require ballots of shareholders of companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 in respect of proposed donations for political purposes; to define political purposes; to require political funds to be established for the payment of such donations; to specify how such political funds will be funded and the qualifications for receipt of donations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 60].

  Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill [Money] (No. 2)
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Resolution of the House of 22nd May 1997 relating to Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill [Money] shall have effect as if—

  (1) in paragraph (1), the words 'an Order in Council under' were omitted,

  (2) in paragraph (2), for the words 'the Secretary of State' there were substituted the words 'a Minister of the Crown', and

  (3) in paragraph (2)(b), the words 'the establishment of' were omitted.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—or rather, two points of order. The motion refers to a resolution of the house of 22 May 1997; we are being asked, in effect, to amend it. I have been to the Vote Office and asked for a copy of that previous resolution, and I have in my hand the only copy in its possession. In other words, any other hon. Member who goes there for a copy will be referred to me, which is hard luck. I put it to you that when we are asked to look at former resolutions, the Government should ensure an adequate supply of the relevant documents in the Vote Office.
  My second and different point relates to the meaning to be attached to the phrase:
  "a Minister of the Crown".
  I assume that it embraces all Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries, but I would appreciate your guidance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): On the first point, the resolution should have appeared in Hansard and is thus freely available to all right hon. and hon. Members. The second point is one for debate, not for the Chair. We now have some time—admittedly limited—to debate the motion.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be tiresome, but the meaning of a phrase is a matter not for Ministers but for the Chair—this is a House document. I am only asking what "Minister of the Crown" means.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are debating a Government motion, so the Chair should not rule on it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may have a chance to catch my eye during the debate if he wants to expand on his point.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I should like to ask a few questions about the motion because, although it is a money resolution, it deals with certain aspects of the Bill which, because of the previous timetable motion, were not discussed, and certain significant points must be clarified at this stage. It seems slightly odd, although I am told that it is the way in which the House proceeds, that we are dealing with amendments that are consequential upon amendments that we shall not be discussing, if we get
  364
  there, until the end of our debates on the Lords amendments. It is, however, relevant to raise these questions now.
  The first question relates to the matter raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in his point of order, which is the definition of:
  "a Minister of the Crown".
  If I read the amendments right, a Minister of the Crown will now be entitled to spend money, which previously had been the purview of the Secretary of State. It is for the consideration of the House as to which Ministers will be entitled to spend money on matters such as those set out in the resolution:
  "(a) in connection with the referendum held by virtue of the Act, or
  (b) in the preparation of a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly."
  I presume that not every Minister in the Government would be entitled to spend public money and then claim that it somehow fitted under one of those two heads; I should be grateful if we could be told who those Ministers will be.
  Are there any limits to how much those Ministers might be able to spend under the provision? Can any Minister of the Crown issue, for example, expenditure certificates in connection with the forthcoming referendums? Who, at the end of the day, judges whether the expenditure is actually in connection with the provided purposes? Who is the arbiter of that expenditure and how will the system work? When expenditure was carried out by Secretaries of State, it obviously related to the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office and that was not a problem; but if it is spread much wider, we need to know who the Ministers are and what the limitations are.
  Secondly, the deletion of the words "the establishment of', is another of the consequential amendments. I have read the explanation for that action given in another place and I understand that it is to allow for certain preparations that might not be strictly connected with the establishment of a Parliament building or a place for the Assembly, or for expenditure on matters such as preparing for the tax-varying powers of the Scottish Parliament. I heard what was said in the other place, and we all appreciate that some expenditure might go a little wider, but we need to know how wide. We are told that it is likely to be expenditure incurred by the Inland Revenue or the Department of Social Security, but within what time scale are they to be allowed to make that expenditure? What sort of sums are envisaged—large or small?
  If the tax-varying powers are wider than they appear to be on the face of the Scottish White Paper, what control will there be over the expenditure? If other potential tax-raising powers are hidden within the words of the White Paper, can studies into those be contracted, which would be paid for under this provision of the money resolution? What limits would there be to that sort of work? Those are points on which we need to have information before the House can be satisfied that the matter has been fully thought through.
  Finally, there is the question of the words that are not subject to the amendments, but which are within the resolution and closely tied to the amendments—the words, "provided by Parliament". What the money resolution says is that the expenditure, which can now be

  365
  incurred by any Minister of the Crown in connection with a widely drawn preparation for a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly, will be provided for by Parliament. What does that mean? Will the money come from the central Exchequer? Will it come from the Scottish and the Welsh blocks? If from the Scottish and Welsh blocks, will the blocks be as they are now, or will they be supplemented to pay for the expenditure?
  What new calculations have the Government made of the preparation costs? In respect of the Scottish Parliament, we have had start-up figures of between £10 million and £14 million, but that was in the days before the powers were expanded as they have been in the money resolution. Presumably, those figures will now be greater. We should be told what estimate the Government make of the extra costs of preparing for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly under the broader criteria.
  We need assurances, not only about what the costs will be, but especially that none of the expenditure will be paid for by United Kingdom taxpayers. If the expenditure has to be incurred—the House knows that I would disagree with that suggestion—it should be paid for by people in Wales and in Scotland, and I should like a categorical assurance on that point.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I believe that it is reasonable to take the time of the House to ask a question about borrowing powers. I should have thought that any Parliament that calls itself a Parliament must be entitled to borrowing powers, and there are no limits, beyond those of what is politically acceptable, to the borrowing powers of the United Kingdom Government.
  By contrast, there are very precise limits to the permissible borrowing of local authorities. Before their borrowing is included in calculations of the public sector borrowing requirement, it is ultimately controlled by the Treasury. It is inconceivable that similar restraints will not be imposed on a Scottish Parliament as, whether it has taxing powers or not, nearly all its revenue will come from Westminster, having been calculated as a share of the UK Government's revenue. Any borrowing that it is permitted will be part of the PSBR and controlled accordingly.
  Is that a correct understanding of the position? Some people have great expectations of a Parliament in Edinburgh that has borrowing powers. Might that be clarified?
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to follow the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I draw the Minister's attention to three points and seek his clarification on them.
  The first point relates to the requirement for an Order in Council under the Act. That is the first tiret. As I understand the existing money resolution, before an expenditure is authorised to be covered under the money resolution, the money must be authorised under the Act and approved by an Order in Council. In other words, the Order in Council was a condition precedent of the money being paid.
  366
  We are deleting that. In other words, I would suggest to the House, we are loosening the control that the House has of the money that is covered by the money resolution. In other words, expenditure can be incurred under the Act which is not covered by an Order in Council, and that is a wider class of money than would otherwise have been the case.
  When the money resolution was first brought before the House, the Minister obviously had in mind a range of expenditure with, no doubt, a quantum attached to it. He has removed the condition precedent. That suggests to me a wider range of payments, and no doubt an increased quantum. What are the new categories that were not previously in his mind, and how much more shall we be asked to pay?
  My second point relates to the matter that I raised with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. I believe that the House is interested to know the meaning of the phrase, "Minister of the Crown". I well know the meaning of the phrase, "Secretary of State"—not just one, but any old Secretary of State—but what is the meaning of the phrase, "Minister of the Crown"? I assume that it includes a Secretary of State. I assume, too, that it includes a Minister of State. I suppose that it includes an Under-Secretary. However, the House is entitled to know what it means.
  I suspect that the phrase means that any old Minister can give the authority; if that is right, we are diluting the authority of the Secretary of State or, more specifically, removing his accountability. Under the previous money resolution, only the Secretary of State could give the authority, but now any old Minister can do so; the Secretary of State can slough off responsibility by saying that something was said by his Under-Secretary and he did not really mean it.
  That brings me to the final point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, that we are removing the linkage in the second tiret, subsection (b), to "the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. When the money resolution was first before the House, it was fairly plain that it covered only expenditure linked to purposes
  "for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament".
  In a sense, one knew what that meant. The resolution was fairly limited; there is the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and thus consequential expenditures flowing therefrom. If we remove the phrase, "the establishment of', the resolution will read:
  "in preparation for a Scottish Parliament".
  That is a very large slice of the cake of expenditure—a whole range of consequential expenditures in Scotland and Wales may be deemed necessary as a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly is about to be set up. No doubt the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security, my old Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and many other Departments will say that, because a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly is about to be set up, further expenditure will be required.
  The House is entitled to know the new classes of expenditure that are now covered by the money resolution. I should be pleased to hear from the Minister his assessment of the increase in that expenditure. He no doubt has some figure in mind. We want to know what his previous assessment was and the assessment that he now makes of the increase. Both figures would be extremely helpful.

  367
  A lot more work remains to be done by the Minister to persuade the House about the desirability of the money resolution before hon. Members give their consent.
  5.1 pm
  The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I should be pleased to answer some of the questions put by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is important to clear up first the question about Ministers of the Crown. The meaning will be wider than Secretary of State, because there may be expenditure by Departments not headed by a Secretary of State, for example, expenditure by the Inland Revenue on computer programmes to deal with tax issues. Much of the interpretation is common sense, but it seems to be lost on some Opposition Members.
  The question of junior Ministers was also raised. Clearly, that is a red herring. In this respect, as in all others, junior Ministers take decisions only on matters referred to them by the Minister in charge of their Department. I should have expected that the experience of some Opposition Members would brush off on them to the point that they would understand what is going on.
  We also heard some comments about the costs involved. The total estimated preparatory costs are £18 million to £25 million, as set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum. The money resolution does not change the facts laid before the House and discussed in the other place, which are now back in this House for discussion. DSS costs are included within that limit. All that will be conditional on the Supply process of dealing with money in this House. That, too, is well known to Opposition Members.
  Mr. Ancram: It would be much more helpful if the Minister did not simply refer us to the ordinary ways in which that is done, but categorically answered the question about whether any of that expenditure will be paid from sources outwith the Scottish and Welsh blocks and whether any expenditure will be incurred by United Kingdom taxpayers rather than borne by the blocks in Scotland and Wales.
  Mr. McLeish: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) goes over old ground time and again. The answer is obvious: this settlement seeks to strike a balance in terms of Scots seeking to have a Parliament in Edinburgh. The Secretary of State is on record as saying that the costs of that will be borne by the block.
  Mr. Hogg: And in Wales?
  Mr. McLeish: I am speaking about Scotland. Opposition Members should contain themselves. They ask questions, but they fail to give me an opportunity to respond. I have often told them that listening would be in their long-term interests, instead of carrying on as they have for the past 18 years. With great courtesy, I say that we can see where that has got them.
  368
  I shall deal with the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. Paragraph 7.10 on page 23 of the White Paper states:
  "The Scottish Parliament will have power to authorise the Scottish Executive to undertake short-term borrowing to assist in the short-term matching of income and expenditure. It will not have a long-term borrowing power on its own account."
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Can the Minister clarify his previous answer? If, for example, the Inland Revenue incurs additional expense while setting up the tartan tax, will it be recompensed from the Scottish block?
  Mr. McLeish: The answer is self-evident. Labour Members do not call it the tartan tax. The Scots will be given the opportunity in the referendum on 11 September to choose whether the Parliament should have a tax-varying power. Of course, if costs are incurred via the Departments, they will come from the Scottish block. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) asks from a sedentary position why I did not say that. It has been said time and again. The questions have been posed before and answered reasonably.
  Mr. Hogg: The Minister referred to the Scottish block, and I understand why he is speaking about that. The principle also applies to the Welsh block. The House wants to know whether what is true of the Scottish block is also true of the Welsh block—in other words, whether any expenditure in Wales that is authorised directly or indirectly under the money resolution will fall on the Welsh block and not be paid by taxpayers outside Wales.
  Mr. McLeish: The answer is yes, but the debate should be conducted in a more dignified manner. The Opposition would have us believe that the settlement is not in the interests of the United Kingdom. They take a mean-spirited view and discuss the issues in terms of the UK v. Wales, and the UK v. Scotland. The country does not want that level of debate. It wants to probe hard on questions of finance, but, after 18 years of the Conservative Government's financial controls, we will not take lectures from the Opposition Front Bench.
  The amendments to the money resolution are required in consequence of two sets of amendments made to the Bill in another place. Both are purely technical.
  The first amendment is required to take account of the incorporation of the detailed provision for the conduct of the referendum as a schedule to the Bill. Hon. Members will recall that, during the earlier stages of the Bill, we proposed that that should be dealt with by Orders in Council, as had been the case in previous referendums. At the request of Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish in another place, we agreed that the change should be made. That will have the fortunate consequence of allowing the House and another place to rise this week, rather than having to wait simply to debate the Orders in Council. The amendment to the money resolution is purely technical.
  The second and third amendments are also technical, and mirror amendments made in another place to clarify the scope of the finance provision in clause 5. Clause 5(2) 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 that provision should cover not only

  369
  expenditure on the building or refurbishment of Parliament and Assembly buildings, but 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 powers are to be available upon the establishment of the Scottish Parliament—whether or not the Parliament decides to use them—it may be necessary to incur expenditure before the main devolution legislation reaches the statute book. The amendments are intended to put beyond any doubt the question whether such expenditure would be covered by clause 5. The estimated costs shown in the explanatory and financial memorandum remain unchanged. All expenditure under the provision will be subject to the normal parliamentary rules of Supply.
  Question put and agreed to.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)
5.9 pm
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House of 3rd June 1997 be supplemented as follows:

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)

  Lords Amendments
  1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
  (2) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (1)—

  (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
  2.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
  (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  (3) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  371

  (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Reasons Committee
  3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

  Extra time, & c.
  4.—(1) This paragraph applies to—

  (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments,

  (b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords,

  (c) proceedings on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the appointment of its Chairman.

  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.
  (3) Proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (5) If proceedings to which this paragraph applies are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the interrupted proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
  (6) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings to which this paragraph applies are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  The purpose of the motion is to ensure proper, structured consideration of the amendments made to the Bill in another place. The intention is to ensure that the changes proposed to the Bill are given fair consideration and that other business is not jeopardised, particularly at this stage in the Session.
  We repeat that the referendums Bill is simple and straightforward and follows precedent. It essentially seeks the consent of the people of Scotland and Wales and paves the way for substantive legislation. The Bill itself has been debated extensively in both Houses. In the Commons, it was debated for almost 22 hours over four days. In the Lords, it was debated for almost 33 hours over six days. Government amendments to the Bill are essentially technical, in that they put on the face of the Bill the provisions that were previously in the Standing Orders. That move was proposed by the Opposition in another place and was accepted by the Government. The other Government amendment simply clarifies the scope of financial provision—it does not imply any additional expenditure over and above what was already anticipated.
  372
  Opposition amendments are also straightforward. One seeks to require the referendums to be held on the same day. The Government have made it clear all along that there are good reasons for holding the Welsh and Scottish referendums on different days. Another Opposition amendment inserts the word "income" into the second question on the ballot paper. Again, we have always made it clear that that is both unnecessary and undesirable.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister mentioned the argument about the dates of the two referendums and he said that the Government had given reasons for their position both here and in another place. Will he develop those arguments later today, or is this the only occasion upon which he will condescend to address the House on that matter?
  Mr. McLeish: I hope that my contributions to the House could never be described as condescending. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), will deal with that matter later.
  We have no doubt that the Opposition intend to debate the issues sensibly. However, our experience in Committee, when Opposition Members tabled several frivolous amendments, has made the Government wary and not prepared to take any chances. The timetable motion aims to strike the right balance between the need to complete the business and the need to provide adequate time for debate. Time taken debating the allocation of time motion could be used to debate Lords amendments. This seems to be a straightforward and sensible measure, and I therefore urge hon. Members to move on quickly to debate the substantive issues.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I have heard some introductions to guillotine motions, but the Minister's comments take the biscuit for their breathtaking arrogance. I shall explain why. The motion is another step along the disgraceful path of railroading this important constitutional legislation through the House. Only yesterday, the Government were still amending the Bill in the House of Lords. I shall turn to today's events later.
  The Minister asked whether I intended to take up time debating the motion. I shall take as little time as I can, despite my genuine anger about this imposition. I am in a quandary, as we have only three hours in which to consider the Bill and that time started when the Minister got to his feet. Every moment we spend debating the motion is a minute subtracted from the time that we have to discuss the very important amendments.
  If we were to call a Division, that time would also be subtracted from the time that we need to debate those amendments. Therefore, I do not intend either to speak for long or to divide the House. However, we must do justice to the amendments today, as we were not able even to discuss them when the Bill was before the House previously, because of the guillotine imposed at that time. It would constitute a double gag if we did not discuss the amendments today, and that is totally unacceptable in this Parliament.
  The shortness of my speech does not detract from my concern about the arrogance with which the Government treat the House of Commons and the synthetic and

  373
  pathetic display of irritation that they evinced against the other place. The Minister cannot argue that the motion is designed to prevent delay. He said that it is intended to ensure that "other business is not jeopardised". Let us look at the provisions of the motion. They will end consideration of the Bill in three hours. There is no other business on the Order Paper today and, as a result of the motion, we shall rise before the normal Adjournment of the House. Therefore, it is simply wrong to suggest that the motion is necessary in order to protect other business.
  Still more breathtaking is the fact that, far from dealing only with Opposition amendments from another place, the Government are amending their own amendments. In the first block of amendments, the Government disagree with the Lords amendments that they passed in another place. As I have said, it is breathtakingly arrogant to suggest that the debate on the motion is somehow a waste of time. The Government are drafting the Bill on the hoof in their headlong rush to produce it.
  The Government expressed irritation with the other place when the amendments were passed—I think that all hon. Members will remember the Minister's comments about hereditary peers misusing or abusing their position. It is interesting to examine the facts surrounding those votes in another place. For the first amendment on 3 July concerning the referendum dates, the Opposition in the House of Lords had a majority of seven. Some 49 Labour life peers did not participate in that vote. Where were they? For the second amendment on 21 July, the Opposition had a majority of 17. Some 32 Labour life peers did not vote that day.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has the figures available, but will he tell the House what percentage of members of the House of Lords voted in those Divisions? That will give us an idea of the importance that the other place attached to the amendments.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is for Governments to get their business through. On that occasion, Labour life peers—who, we are told, are sent to the House of Lords to do a job for their party—were simply not present. It is not surprising that Labour Members of Parliament appear so willing to relinquish their seats in this place in order to move to the House of Lords, as they obviously have a pretty cushy role there—they do not even have to turn up to vote.
  Mr. Garnier: Labour life peers might have been absent for those votes because the referendum dates—whether they are a week or a month apart—are not part of the Labour party's election manifesto.
  Mr. Ancram: That may be so. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will have more to say about that when we discuss the relevant amendments.
  It is quite extraordinary that tonight—the night before we debate the Scottish White Paper—hon. Members will be sent home before the normal Adjournment of the House. I cannot help feeling that the Government are ensuring that English comrades are out of the way before the White Paper is debated tomorrow. The Government do not want them to see the impact that the White Paper's proposals will have on the constitutional position of England and on English Members of Parliament.
  374
  The guillotine procedure is never welcome: it is the exercising of Executive power, backed by a parliamentary majority, over the rights of Parliament to discuss and debate substantive and important legislation. It is particularly abusive today as it is based on nothing more than administrative convenience. It demonstrates the Labour Government's total disregard of parliamentary democracy, and it is another step down a dangerous road of which all who cherish the rights of Parliament should be very wary indeed. If it were not for the fact that dividing the House would increase the gag on debate, I would oppose the motion.
  However, we must discuss important amendments that we were prevented from considering when the Bill was before the House previously. Therefore, reluctantly and regretfully, I must urge my hon. Friends to proceed to consideration of the amendments from another place as soon as possible.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the Lords amendments relate to tax, it may be convenient for the House if I were to assist it and clarify the position by asking three precise questions.
  First, are we correct in understanding that a single person who earns £30,145 a year would be required to pay an extra £660 in taxation if a Scottish Parliament were to raise the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound? That would be an 11 per cent. increase in that person's income tax bill. Do the Government expect companies to compensate their employees for that large increase, thereby increasing inflation and making Scottish business less competitive?
  My second question refers to the White Paper, which projects that a 3p in the pound increase in the basic rate of income tax will produce £450 million of extra revenue. Where does that figure come from? If the tax produces only £250 million, what happens then?
  I made inquiries of the accountants Ernst and Young, and Mr. Ian Hunter said that it was likely that the figures went back to 1995. Eight per cent. of the UK total yield of £1.6 billion would be yielded by 1p on income tax. But there is a problem. Are we talking about earned income or savings? If it is simply earned income, the revenue accruing is likely to be well under £450 million. Could that be clarified?
  Thirdly, Scottish businesses suffered injustice over many years when making larger rates payments than their counterparts in England. The uniform business rate seeks to resolve that obvious anomaly. Why, then, should that successful system be devolved to the new Scottish Parliament, which will then have the ability to increase the rates paid or even to restructure the entire system? Is that not going against the level playing field offered to Scottish businesses?
  Some comment on those questions at the Minister's convenience would be valuable before we proceed.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to follow briefly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said. Like him, I recognise the need to be brief, for the reasons that he outlined, but I wish to voice my strong objections to the guillotine motion.
  My right hon. Friend is entirely right when he says that there is no justification for this guillotine motion on either narrow or broad grounds. The plain truth is that we can sit here until 10 o'clock without infringing the usual procedures.
  The first question that the Minister might care to answer is why we do not have five hours, which would at least take us up to 10 o'clock, which is the usual time for the completion of such business; instead, the debate has been limited to three hours. My strong suspicion is that the Government do not wish to debate the substantial amendments.
  In any event, the House will shortly go into recess for three months. If the Government were seriously concerned about debating the amendments, they would postpone our three-month recess by a day or two, or even more. Again, the House might suspect that Ministers do not want to debate the amendments.
  That brings me to my last point. I do not believe that the House, either now or at any other time, can properly debate devolution for Scotland or Wales until we see the proposals for England. That is because no plan for devolution in Scotland or Wales will prove sustainable or durable unless it is fair to England. There are a variety of reasons for that. I shall not weary the House by repeating them today, but the House is entitled to know what plans the Government have to make the proposals for Scotland and Wales fair to England. No one has told us that.
  On the contrary, the Government have proposed a range of ad hoc measures, such as the reform of the other place and an elected mayor for the city of London. There may be merit in those measures, but we are entitled to see the broad frame of their constitutional proposals. I would wish the debate to go on for day after day, month after month, until we know how the proposals will be made fair to England. We should be concerned with the needs not just of England but of Scotland and Wales. Unless the proposals are fair to England, they will not last in Scotland and Wales.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted that the White Paper on Welsh devolution specifically says that one reason why the people of Wales should be encouraged to vote yes in the referendum is that, otherwise, they would be left behind by the devolution proposals in England, about which we, and they, have not been told?
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government are clearly, on their own account, seeking to be fair to Wales. The one issue that they have not thought to address is that of fairness to England. I wish to see the debate enlarged for as long as may be necessary to address that question.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) speaks for England; we would have expected
  376
  no less of him. When he was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he used to act for England, even though he had responsibilities that covered the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a different memory from me.
  I am delighted that the Opposition will not force the motion to a vote, or I would have found myself voting for a guillotine motion, a rare event in my parliamentary career. Those on the Conservative Benches who were members of the previous Parliament voted for many guillotine motions, and I am sure that Labour Members will find themselves voting for many guillotine motions during this Parliament. I seldom, if ever, vote for guillotine motions, but I certainly would have voted for this one tonight if it had been forced to a Division, and I shall say why.
  I asked the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about the number of people who had voted in the other place. I do not have the exact figures, but I understand that about 200 peers voted on the amendments that we will consider tonight. That is 20 per cent. or less of the total composition of the House of Lords. My goodness, it was lucky that there was not a 40 per cent. rule in the other place when it was addressing those questions.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
  Mr. Salmond: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment if he is fortunate.
  The noble Lords could not have considered the amendments of such momentous importance that they were willing to come in droves from the shires to debate and vote on the future of the United Kingdom, or to bring some wisdom to this House to enable us to consider the matters. [Interruption.] I do not have a brief for the Labour party; nor do I have a brief for the House of Lords. I am merely pointing out that 80 per cent.—four fifths—of the other place did not bother to vote on the amendments that we are considering; unless I am to believe that 80 per cent. of their lordships were caught in an agony of indecision, frozen on the Benches, not knowing whether to put back the Scottish referendum by a week or bring forward the Welsh referendum by a week. Those were the essential decisions which had to be made and which their lordships were considering.
  When we debate a guillotine motion, we should consider the substance of the amendments before us and the importance that their lordships wanted to give to them.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: On the matter of numbers and proportions, the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made very well, does he notice that only a small proportion of Labour Members are here today to debate the Bill? Does that not show that this most important piece of constitutional legislation is not held in high regard by Labour Members?
  Mr. Salmond: I do not want to engage in a numbers game with the hon. Lady, but I do not think that the Conservative Benches are packed to overflowing this afternoon. One third of the parliamentary Scottish National party are in their places this evening, and if one third of the other parties were here tonight we would have a fuller House.

  377
  The hon. Lady makes my point for me. The absence of her hon. Friends and Labour Members shows that the Lords amendments are not particularly important. Members of the House of Lords did not turn up to vote for them, and Members of the House of Commons have not turned up to vote them down. We should draw the conclusion that the amendments do not constitute points of substance. I regret that. I hold no brief for the House of Lords or for the Labour party, but we have a revising Chamber. [Interruption.] I welcome the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the leader of the Welsh National party, to the Chamber. Yet again, the national parties are well represented.
  We should look to a revising Chamber to put to this House points of real substance.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the leader of Plaid Cymru has just come into the Chamber. Could it be that the good representation on the nationalist Benches reflects the fact that nationalist Members understand more clearly than the Labour party that the proposals being put to Scotland and Wales in the referendums will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, and that is what they want?
  Mr. Salmond: That representation shows the dedication of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. We are good parliamentarians, even though we have not drafted the legislation. The right hon. Member would do well to leave the future of Scotland and Wales to the judgment of the Scottish and Welsh people. Whatever destination we want for the people of Scotland, one thing on which most democrats are agreed is that the decision will be made by the people of Scotland and Wales, who will be judge and jury.
  I hold no brief for the House of Lords, but I had hoped that a revising Chamber that was considering the first referendum in the United Kingdom since 1979 would make points of real substance. Two issues could have been debated tonight if their lordships had felt that these matters were significant. An amendment that examined or asked people to think about the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and popular sovereignty would have been worth an extended debate in this Chamber. What a pity that such an amendment is not before us. Their lordships seemed to think that other issues were more important.
  We could also have discussed a three-way referendum, which is supported by the majority of people in Scotland. The referendum could have been a choice between independence, devolution and the status quo. The right hon. Member for Devizes is nodding. I remind him that, when I put such an amendment to the House in May, Conservative Front Benchers sat on their hands and did not vote, although many Conservative Back Benchers did so. When the matter was pursued in the other place, it was not thought worthy of taking to a vote. Instead, we have these trivial amendments to change the date of the referendum—as if the people of Wales, having debated this issue for a quarter of a century, will change their minds one way or the other because the referendum is a week sooner or a week later. What nonsense, and what an insult to the intelligence of the people of Wales. Why bring to the House amendments that seek to alter the timetable by one week either way?
  378
  When we consider a guillotine motion, we should examine the substance of the Lords amendments. I was astonished to learn that, because of the residential requirements, 140 Scottish peers will be entitled to vote in the referendum. I did not know that there were 140 Scottish peers. I have examined what the fully equipped Scottish laird costs the people of Scotland—and, indeed, the people of the United Kingdom. Far too much, in my opinion, if this is the quality of the amendments that they send to this House.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salmond: No.
  We would do well to support the guillotine motion, to go forward in this debate and to leave the decision to the people of Scotland.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I want to intervene briefly on the issue of the timetable motion. The spectacle of two members of the previous Government declaiming against the evils of the guillotine motion was nauseating. It was rather like Herod coming back after his notorious exhibition and declaiming from the pulpit against the evils of infanticide. We had many guillotine motions in the previous Parliament, which often were not justified and resulted in badly debated legislation. It is intolerable for Conservatives to argue against such a motion now.
  I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I cannot remember in which context he made it, but his adjectives "synthetic" and "pathetic" were excellent. Conservative Members have been synthetic and pathetic this evening.
  Conservative Members have clearly not read the important report that was published yesterday by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. I am a member of that Select Committee: one or two other members may be present, although I do not see any of the Conservative members. Opposition spokesmen have not listened to what their hon. Friends on that Committee have recommended. We must find better ways of ensuring that all parts of a Bill are properly discussed and that we do not end up with the absurdities of timetable motions. It may be a forlorn hope, but I should like this to be the last timetable motion. In future, we should have programming motions that establish at the outset—by agreement, when that can be achieved—sensible ways of dispatching the business of the House to ensure that all parts of a Bill are considered properly.
  It is clear that we need not spend a great deal of time on the Lords amendments, but some big issues should have been debated earlier. There would have been a better debate if there had been discussion among all parties to ensure a proper, paced discussion of the Bill. I hope that the Opposition will read the report and understand what their representatives, including the shadow Leader of the House, have signed up to.
  It is extremely important to make progress on this legislation. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, in the end democracy will achieve real reform in Wales, Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. It is time that we got on with the job.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Norman A. Godman: In my 14 years in the House, I have voted against many guillotine motions, but I would have been delighted to vote for this one. When I think of the way in which this odd job lot opposite rammed through the poll tax legislation, in spite of the deep distress and anger of the overwhelming majority of people I represent, I have no sympathy for them. In fact, in the past few minutes I have been intensely amused by these whingeing Tories. The Germans have a word for it: schadenfreude. That fits remarkably well.
  I have listened to the endless whingeing of members of a regional party of England who seek to deny what the majority of the people of Scotland so ardently desire, a Scottish Parliament. If in the fulness of time that leads to a federal system with an English Parliament, so be it. As far as I am concerned, they can have one. This legislation is a step in that direction.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) often voices a confused view on devolution. He advocates an Assembly for Northern Ireland, yet he is opposed to devolution for the rest of Britain. We should ignore the whingeing of the right hon. Gentleman and the other distressed members of what is thankfully a regional party—and long may it remain so.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. McLeish: I shall be brief, because the Opposition said that they wanted the maximum time for debate.
  Mr. Godman: I forgot to ask the question that I intended to ask. For many years, I have argued for an international architectural competition, such as we had for the national museum of Scotland. Has my hon. Friend considered the feasibility of having that underused building, Holyrood palace, as the location for the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. McLeish: I thought that that was going to be a helpful intervention, but I was then worried that my hon. Friend would suggest that the Parliament should be located in his constituency.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was very ungracious. As several hon. Members have pointed out, it is breathtaking to hear the Opposition—as they now are—talking about guillotines. They seem to want us to involve ourselves in some kind of collective amnesia, to forget that the past 18 years happened and to believe that there were no guillotines. They want us to believe that the procedures of the House were honoured, and that every convention was observed to the letter.
  We will take no lectures. Words such as "synthetic", "pathetic", "breathtaking", "arrogance" and "anger" are bandied about—
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. McLeish: Not now.
  In fact, the only people who will be angry about the Conservative Opposition's reaction are the people of Scotland and Wales, who see their every ambition thwarted by Conservative Members' failure to remember that 1 May was a catastrophic day in the political fortunes
  380
  of the Conservative party in both Scotland and Wales. They may have missed the important fact that, on 24 July, we published a White Paper relating to Scotland. To put it mildly, there was a sensationally positive reaction in many parts of Scotland.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. McLeish: In a minute.
  Let me draw hon. Members' attention to another date. We have had 1 May; we have had 24 July. Now 11 September looms, and the Conservative party in Scotland—and in Wales, a week later—had better sort itself out. The Scottish and Welsh people are not forgiving of a party that fails to address the realities, and to try to do something positive to help those whom its members purport to represent.
  Mr. Hogg: Even if we assume that there must be a guillotine, and even if we assume that we must complete the business today, we must ask why the motion does not provide for a five-hour debate, which would have concluded at 10 pm rather than 8 pm.
  Mr. McLeish: I do not think that that question need delay us. We are debating the timetable motion.
  I am not inclined to waste any more of the House's valuable time. As Opposition Members suggested a few minutes ago, we need time in which to debate the issue—which I might be able to do if hon. Members stopped intervening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked several questions. He suggested that a single person earning more than £30,000 a year would pay £660 in tax. I think that that is about right, but I intend to write to my hon. Friend confirming the details of where the tax will bite. He also asked about the £450 million yield. The source of that figure is Her Majesty's Treasury.
  My hon. Friend asked about the uniform business rate. We have written into the devolution package outlined in the White Paper a proposal that legislative powers for local government should be passed to the Scottish Parliament, and we therefore thought it consistent to pass the power relating to the uniform business rate to the Parliament as well. That means that the Parliament itself will decide on the rate in future. The position would have been exactly the same if the power had been retained at Westminster.
  I believe that this is a good settlement, for the United Kingdom, for Scotland and for Wales. Is it not appropriate in the mother of Parliaments for the Conservative Opposition to show a little humility? Will they accept that people have rights and aspirations and send us to the House to speak on our behalf? The timetable motion would expedite the business of the House by allowing a structured debate, so that we can ensure that the Welsh and the Scots have a chance to vote on 11 September. If we value democracy, let us start to debate the substantive items.
  Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
    Clause 1

      REFERENDUM IN SCOTLAND
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out ("Her Majesty may by Order in Council") and insert ("the Secretary of State may by order")
      5.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment, in page 1, line 5, leave out
      `such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint'
      and insert `11th September 1997'.
      Lords amendments No. 5, plus the motion to disagree; No. 6, plus the motion to disagree, and amendment (a) thereto; No. 7, plus the motion to disagree; and No. 10, plus the motion to disagree.
      Mr. Hain: Lords amendments Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 10 are part of a group made by the Government at the request of the Opposition in another place to incorporate the material on the detailed conduct of the referendums as a schedule to the Bill. We shall debate the rest of that group later. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 6 deal with the mechanism for specifying the dates of the referendums. The Government have stated their intention to hold the referendum in Scotland on 11 September and the Welsh referendum a week later on 18 September.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Before my hon. Friend goes into the technicalities, will he clarify the position relating to arrangements for opening the sessions of the Welsh Assembly, in view of the somewhat bizarre articles on the front pages of today's editions of The Guardian and The Western Mail? They almost produced visions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales using his well-known pull in Washington to persuade President Clinton to come over, step into the breach and—rather like President Kennedy before him—issue from the steps of Cardiff city hall the statement "Ich bin ein Cardiffer". I understand from the Press Association, however, that Buckingham palace has now said that the entire story was a fabrication.
      Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The two journalists concerned, David Hencke of The Guardian and Michael Settle of The Western Mail, are respected journalists on highly respected newspapers, but they were both sold a pup, if not a corgi. Paragraph 1.20 of the White Paper states clearly:
      "The Assembly will be a Crown body. The Government envisages that Her Majesty the Queen or Her representative would formally open the Assembly after each election."
      382
      Following today's story, Buckingham palace issued a press release stating:
      "The Guardian story is nonsense. The wording of the White Paper on this issue means precisely what it says and The Queen was kept informed throughout its preparation. Far from The Queen not wanting to open the Welsh Assembly, it would be very much part of her constitutional role to do so."
      As I was saying, the Government have stated their intention to hold the referendum in Scotland on 11 September, with the Welsh referendum a week later on 18 September. In its original form, the Bill allowed the dates of the referendums to be appointed by Her Majesty in Orders in Council. As I said earlier, we shall shortly deal with the amendments to incorporate those orders in the main Bill. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 6 would replace the original mechanism for setting the dates with a power for the Secretary of State to appoint the dates by order.
      The orders would have been used to set down 11 and 18 September. It makes sense to write the dates into the Bill now, rather than requiring an order to be made. We therefore propose amendments in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 6 that would do that. Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 10 would then be rendered unnecessary.
      Lords amendment No. 7 would require the referendums to be held on the same date. I fail to understand the Opposition's obsession with a single date. There is no reason why the Scottish and Welsh referendums should be held on the same day; they are separate referendums, being held in two separate countries on two separate sets of proposals. There would be as much sense in arguing that the referendum on our proposals for London should be held on 11 September as well.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Over recent weeks, it has been argued strongly that the referendums should be on separate dates. It has been pointed out that our arguments on behalf of Wales will gain the attention only of the London-based press—which, overwhelmingly, is the press that is read in Wales—if the referendum takes place on a separate date from the Scottish referendum. Otherwise, the Welsh arguments will be subsumed into the Scottish arguments. The two White Papers are, of course, quite different.
      Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, to which I shall return shortly.
      We want the referendum to give the people of Wales an opportunity to demonstrate clearly that they endorse our proposals with as high a turnout as possible. To that end, we need to ensure that the people are well informed about our proposals, and that their decision is based on a full and thorough understanding of what the Assembly will mean, what it will do and what it will bring to Wales.
      Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend said that the electorate should be well informed. Rather than spending approximately £1 million on propaganda to push the yes vote, could you not have spent the money on

      383
      teachers who would otherwise be made redundant? If you refuse to do that, and insist that Government money—taxpayers' money—must be spent—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that when he uses the word you, he addresses the Chair and not a colleague.
      Mr. Smith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister insists on using taxpayers' money to pay for a propaganda exercise. Surely that money could have been allocated to both sides so that the electorate, to use the Minister's words, could have been well informed.
      Mr. Hain: I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend and I shall explain why. It is no part of the Government's duty to conduct propaganda on behalf of either the yes or the no campaigns. It is part of the Government's duty to inform the electorate about the detail of our policies. Does my hon. Friend seriously suggest that the electorate should be ignorant of the policies on which we are holding a referendum? Surely not. People should be well informed, and the Government are spending prudently and modestly well under £1 million to inform the electorate about our proposals.
      Mr. James Gray: I welcome the Minister's assurance about spending a large amount to make sure that everybody is aware of the referendum issues. Does that mean that he will spend equal amounts on advancing arguments for yes and for no?
      Mr. Hain: Obviously the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the clear answer. We are not financing yes or no campaigns: we are explaining the Government's proposals.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Hain: Hon. Members should calm down.
      Does the hon. Gentleman wish the people of Wales to be ignorant of the Government's proposals? The answer is plainly yes. It would be extraordinary if the Government did not seek fairly to put the White Paper's proposals to the people so that, when they are invited to vote in a referendum, they are fully informed on the detail.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: Part of the argument put to the people of Wales in the White Paper is, "Look, you must go along with this proposal because it is part of a package of constitutional reform which will include the English regions." There is no package of constitutional reform and we do not know the proposals. It is piecemeal constitutional reform in which each section of the population is being kept in the dark about the intentions of the others. That is one of our reasons for objecting to the referendums being held on different dates. Can the hon. Gentleman not understand that?
      Mr. Hain: It is not clear from the hon. Gentleman's question whether he is advocating constitutional reform. Does he support the Government's proposals for devolving power to Scotland and Wales and, increasingly,
      384
      to the English regions, starting with London next year? His intervention was interesting. I make it absolutely clear that the Government have been careful to put in the White Paper a considered programme for devolving power and decision making to the people of Wales.
      We have made an excellent start on informing people. The White Papers for Wales and for Scotland have been best sellers in both countries. I am not sure whether they are selling as well as a Jeffrey Archer novel, although they are selling much better than many of my books. The White Papers are best sellers because there is a thirst for knowledge and an interest in Wales and Scotland in the proposals. The Government intend to continue to inform the public. Both White Papers have been reprinted twice and we shall continue to conduct an information campaign.
      Mr. Llew Smith: How many teachers could be employed using the £1 million that is being spent on this propaganda exercise? What is the subsidy per copy of the White Paper on the Welsh Assembly?
      Mr. Hain: It is curious and somewhat regrettable that my hon. Friend's question and his argument effectively play into the hands of the Tory Opposition. That is disappointing. I remind him that Conservative policy was responsible for sacking 600 teachers in Wales in the past year. We should concentrate on exposing Conservative attacks on teachers, nurses, the health service and education and on many other areas of public provision in Wales.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: How many extra teachers could be employed using the £1 million that is being spent on the distribution of literature to the people of Wales?
      Mr. Hain: Crocodile tears by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will not do. The Conservatives were responsible for sacking almost 600 teachers in the past year and sacked more in the year before that. They also sacked nurses and cut housing provision. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) repatriated £100 million from the Welsh budget to the Treasury because he was not interested in supporting the Welsh people.
      As well as reading our White Paper proposals, people need to debate them and to hear what different interests have to say about them. For that reason, it is important that the referendum in Wales is not held on the same day as the one in Scotland. Regrettably, the national media have a tendency to take less interest in events across Offa's dyke than in events beyond Hadrian's wall. If the referendums were held on the same day, there would be a real risk that our proposals for Wales would receive less public scrutiny and debate than would those for Scotland. People in Wales might arrive at the ballot box after having heard a great deal about a Scottish Parliament and relatively little about proposals for a Welsh Assembly. The people of Wales deserve better. The Conservatives are anxious to keep Welsh people in the dark because they fear a popular tide of opinion for a Welsh Assembly and for our proposals for devolving decision making.

      385
      I shall quote from an interesting study of experience in the last referendum in Wales in 1979. A pamphlet called "The Road to the Referendum" was produced by the Institute of Welsh Affairs—a reputable body which is financed by many different institutions in Wales, including some businesses and the Bank of Wales. That means that Sir Julian Hodge's Bank of Wales was involved in financing the pamphlet, which makes interesting reading, although I am sure that Conservative Members do not want to hear what it contains. It describes the 1979 experience in the following terms:
      "In 1979 the Welsh and Scottish referendums were held on the same day, … and UK media attention was focused on Scotland … In consequence the distinctive Welsh case for devolution was never fully understood by the Welsh public … The case for holding the two referendums on different days … is persuasive and is an additional argument for an informed debate".
      That is the evidence presented by the Institute of Welsh Affairs in support of the Government's policy for separate referendums. [Interruption.] It is evidence from an important study, and the document makes a further point about media coverage in Wales and Scotland. It states:
      "Wales's 'national' media are overwhelmingly located in London. It is estimated that in 1979 the daily circulation of the Welsh morning papers (Western Mail and Daily Post) was slightly less than 150,000 copies, whereas the London morning papers had a circulation in excess of 700,000 in Wales.
      The London press was largely uninterested in the devolution issue but when it did consider the subject, concentrated far more on the Scottish dimension … a similar pattern emerged in the coverage of the two referendum campaigns on the BBC and ITN main evening news programmes".
      That is an important point about media coverage.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hain: I shall finish my point and then let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
      The pamphlet continued:
      "The situation today with regard to London's media penetration of Wales is cause for even greater concern. The two Welsh dailies have suffered a significant decline in circulation. The Western Mail and Daily Post now have a combined circulation of less than 100,000 (source: UK Press Gazette/Audit Bureau of Circulation 1996)."
      That figure was down from 150,000 last time.
      "The contrast with the position in Scotland is striking. There 90 per cent. of the daily papers in circulation are produced in Scotland. The figures for Wales is 13 per cent."
      Furthermore, for television coverage
      "Approximately 35 per cent. of the Welsh population live in what are described as 'overlap areas', enabling them to choose (as many do) to watch programmes from English transmitters. This compares with only 2.5 per cent. for Scotland."
      Mr. Jenkin rose—
      Mr. Richard Livsey rose—
      Mr. Hain: Before giving way, as I shall, I must emphasise the fact that there would be less Welsh-only coverage of the debate in Wales. That is why we need a separate day for the referendum, so as to focus debate on our separate proposals.
      6 pm
      Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister note that, during the 1979 referendum, the academic, Barry Jones of Cardiff, did a study of the coverage and discovered that the Western Mail was read by 14 per cent. of the population at that time, while The Sun, the most widely read paper, devoted only 1 sq in to coverage of Welsh devolution, all of which represented the no case?
      Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes the point well.
      Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister tell the House the Institute of Welsh Affairs' opinion of the White Paper, and whether it will support the yes campaign?
      Mr. Hain: The Institute of Welsh Affairs is an independent body which conducts studies—
      Mr. Jenkin: Answer.
      Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman represents Essex. He is not a Member for a Welsh constituency, and knows nothing about the Institute of Welsh Affairs, yet he presumes to ask such questions. I should be happy to give way to him all the evening if he continued to ask that sort of question.
      The Institute of Welsh Affairs is an independent study group, which produced the dispassionate document from which I quoted—[Interruption.] Now the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is laughing too. Is he denigrating the Institute of Welsh Affairs?
      Mr. Evans indicated dissent.
      Mr. Hain: I am pleased to see that, because the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) seemed to be doing so.
      Our proposals for Scotland and Wales—
      Mr. John D. Taylor: We in the Ulster Unionist party certainly support the general thrust of the Government's proposals for devolution in Scotland and Wales, and agree that the referendums should be held on two separate dates. However, the Minister's presentation of media coverage is defective, in that it is not a simple matter of who reads which daily paper. The strength of the weekly newspapers in Scotland and Wales, which are read by all the people in both those nations, is important too.
      Mr. Hain: That is a fair point. However, I was pointing out that, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept, the situation in Wales is different from that in Scotland in terms of daily newspaper readership.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hain: I will, but this had better be the last intervention.
      Mr. Garnier: I am doubly grateful.

      387
      Does the Minister accept that, when we talk about media coverage, we are talking about more than newspapers? Whether for good or ill, most people nowadays get their political news from the television. It is therefore the coverage by Granada Television, looking into north Wales, by HTV and by the Welsh television section of the BBC that matters. Those broadcasting companies will give ample coverage, probably great coverage, to the Welsh democratic question. Why should the Minister lack the confidence to allow the debate to go out?
      Mr. David Hanson: He does not know Wales.
      Mr. Hain: The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is another Conservative based in an English constituency who simply does not understand Wales. I urge him to become better informed. I dealt with the points about television earlier, when I cited evidence from the Institute of Welsh Affairs pamphlet.
      It is a fact, although a regrettable one—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) often complains about it—that a significant proportion, more than one third, of viewers cannot receive Welsh television channels such as HTV Wales or BBC Wales. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be joking if he thinks that Granada Television or HTV West will devote any time, let alone a significant amount of time, to coverage of Welsh issues. They simply do not.
      Our proposals for Scotland and Wales are different. There is no reason for the two ballots to be held on the same day. Indeed, there are good reasons for them to be held on distinct days. However, there is every reason to give the people of Wales the time and the opportunity that they deserve to hear and debate our proposals before they go to the polling stations.
      We propose to give Wales a real voice for the first time. Real democracy means giving people a real say about decisions over schools, hospitals and jobs. An Assembly will give Wales a better health service by ensuring that scarce resources are spent on nurses rather than pen pushers and form fillers, and better schools by setting tough new standards for literacy, numeracy and overall achievement.
      An Assembly will also deliver better job opportunities by providing a voice in Europe and around the world to attract investment and to back Welsh companies. It will provide better value for money by bringing the quangos to public account, and will scrutinise spending decisions. I ask the House to support the Government in upholding the right of the people of Scotland and Wales to have referendums on separate days.
      Mr. Jenkin: The Minister's closing remarks did not sound much like the dispassionate advocacy of fact without bias that he claims for the White Paper. When he said that the White Paper was some sort of dispassionate discourse on the pros and cons of a Welsh Assembly, that was one of the more laughable parts of his speech. If that is the basis on which he proposes to overturn Lords amendment No. 7, it rather undermines the strength of his case.
      388
      I welcome the fact that the dates of the referendums will be written into the Bill. It is better to put them in primary than in secondary legislation. However, I must point out to the Minister that there would be no need for the debate if the House had discussed the dates properly before the Bill went to the House of Lords.
      We must be grateful to the other place for giving us the opportunity to have the debate that was denied us by the guillotine in Committee and on Third Reading. I am reminded of the fact that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) voted for the guillotine—and then got his come-uppance when he was not called to speak on Third Reading. Nothing gave me greater satisfaction than to see the biter bit in that way.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I would gladly forgo a reasonable number of contributions in the House if that would limit the number of anti-Scottish remarks that we so regularly hear from the Conservative Benches. Does the hon. Gentleman really intend to tell the House that the most important aspect that the Conservative and Unionist party can find to talk about concerning the referendum for the Scottish people and the setting up of a Parliament, is the date on which the referendum will be held? Is that magnitude of the Conservative party's contribution?
      Mr. Jenkin: If the House of Lords had made the sort of amendments that the hon. Gentleman suggested, which a cursory thought suggests might have been beyond the scope of the Bill in any case—if they were not, why did he not table them himself? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tabled a convoluted amendment, concerning a complicated voting structure that some of my colleagues found difficult to support.
      I suspect that if the other place had amended the Bill as aggressively as the hon. Gentleman suggested it should have been amended, he would have been the first to jump to his feet and say that it was none of the business of the other place, and that it should not be interfering at all.
      This interesting set of amendments underlines the mix-and-match nature of the Bill and the paper, string and sealing wax approach of the Government, because we are amending some of the Government's own Lords amendments.
      I wish to concentrate on amendment No. 7. It was felt strongly in the other place that there was no case for the referendums being seven days apart. The Government's only argument concerned media coverage, to which I shall refer later. It was made clear in the other place that the Government wanted as much information to be given to voters as possible. The House will forgive a hollow laugh at that if we consider all the guillotines applied to the Bill to get the debates over as quickly as possible and with as little information reaching the voters as possible.
      My noble Friend Lord Crickhowell said that the last devolution referendums in the 1970s were conducted on the same day and that there was no lack of debate. It is only those who lost the argument by a majority of four to one in Wales who are complaining that the information was somehow defective. They are blaming the messengers rather than the message for the result.
      If there were a real desire in the Government for the people of Wales and the people of Scotland to have the information that they need, the Prime Minister would

      389
      fulfil his promise to the House and the Bills would be published in advance of the referendums so that the people of Wales and the people of Scotland would know the details of what they were voting on. That would be a dispassionate and unbiased presentation of fact, instead of the sales brochures issued by the Government.
      If information were the determining factor, there would be a delay so that the Bills could be published and to facilitate the maximum amount of debate. Why will there be a gap of only a week? A week may be a long time in politics, but it is short in most people's imaginations. If information is the objective, why not have, say, a six-week or six-month gap between the referendums? The referendum on London, as the Minister pointed out, is not until 1 May, which gives ample time for proper discussion and debate after the publication of the White Paper.
      The danger of allowing only a week before the Welsh referendum—given the problems of media coverage to which the Minister alluded—is that there will be saturation coverage in the national and London-based press, which is widely read in Wales, of the result of the Scottish referendum. One can imagine that result being heavily reported on Friday and Saturday, and in the Sunday newspapers, and that its implications will still be considered on the Monday and Tuesday. The debate in Wales will be swamped by the coverage of the Scottish result. Perhaps that is the real intention of the Government.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What is wrong with that?
      Mr. Jenkin: I should be delighted if there were adequate coverage of both decisions, but the compressed gap between the referendums suggests that they want the Scottish result to impinge on the Welsh decision.
      Mr. John Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how insulting it is to imply that the people of Wales will simply catch on to the coat tails of the referendum affecting Scotland and that they do not have the ability to make up their own minds? We want the Welsh people to have the fullest possible information and debate to make the right decision—to vote yes.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should make that point to Ministers who think that there will be some kind of domino effect to get the result they want.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is just as much in the interests of the no campaign to have the referendums in the two countries conducted on different days as it is in the interests of the yes campaign, bearing in mind the fact that a major part of the rhetorical attack by the Conservative party on the Welsh devolution proposals was the drawing of invidious comparisons between the Scottish and Welsh proposals? If the Conservative party is interested in a genuine and focused debate, why does it not support conducting the referendums on two separate dates?
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Jenkin: I am not interested in helping the no campaign or the yes campaign with regard to the dates of the referendum. The dates should be as neutral as
      390
      possible. What we have here is the pinnacle of the Government's efforts to manipulate the process of decision making. The process started a long time before the election, when some in the Labour party started to doubt the wisdom of the devolution project. The tartan tax was proving difficult to defend, so Islington Labour came up with the idea of a referendum in Scotland, which meant that there would have to be a referendum in Wales as well.
      As ever, the Labour party treats Wales as Scotland's poor relation. A law-making Parliament for Scotland, but only an afterthought Assembly for Wales; tax-raising powers for Scotland, but no tax-raising powers for Wales; a referendum in Scotland with two questions, but a referendum with only one question in Wales. There will be an afterthought referendum for an afterthought Assembly. Is that the reason why Wales will lag Scotland by a week? One purports to be a Parliament; the other will be a talking shop. Why not put the Welsh referendum before the Scottish referendum? That would deal with the issue of newspaper coverage raised by the Minister and would prevent more effectively Scottish coverage interfering with the Welsh proposal, but that exposes the true intention of the Government's proposals.
      The referendum was always a gamble. A yes, yes vote in Scotland depends on the speed with which the Government get to the referendum as the gap narrows week by week between the yes and the no voters. There must be no pause for thought. Debate must be curtailed, foreshortened, stifled and guillotined. A gamble that looked worth taking in Scotland suddenly looked reckless in Wales, where people voted the last time by four to one against. So the decision was taken that the referendum in Wales must be held in the wake of Scotland's momentous decision. That is not giving full and impartial information to the Welsh people—indeed, it is quite the reverse.
      The Government want the Welsh referendum to be a week after the Scottish referendum to ensure that the last week of debate in Wales is framed, formed and dominated by what Ministers hope will happen in Scotland. That does not follow the precedent of the 1970s, but the devolutionists have learned since then. Too much debate before the decision and the superficial gloss of devolution fades under the light of real scrutiny.
      Why not use the Scottish result to influence the Welsh vote? Successive US presidential elections, for example, have shown that the early results from the eastern states have affected behaviour in the western states still voting. The conduct of the recent accession of four new member states to the EU demonstrated the same logic—the country most certain to join, Austria, voted first, followed by Finland, Sweden and Norway. The intention was to ensure that Norway followed the results of the other applicant states.
      Mr. Hain: What authoritative evidence does the hon. Gentleman have for saying that western states follow eastern states in their voting habits because they declare at different times?
      Mr. Jenkin: The source material is available in the Library, and I have it here. If the Minister wants to read it, he is welcome to do so, but I shall not bore the House with it now.
      Mr. Simon Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the 1980 US presidential election,

      391
      President Carter conceded on the east coast at 8 pm—four hours before the west coast closed—and that Democrats stopped working in the west coast? Scores of congressmen lost their seats because the Democrats realised that the presidential election had been lost.
      Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for amplifying that matter. Those points and more are contained in the material that I obtained from the Library.
      The reversal of amendment No. 7 is a hallmark of the less than impartial way in which Ministers are conducting this process. It proves Clement Attlee's adage that
      "he could not consent to … a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum, which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and fascism."
      It is unfortunate, perhaps, that I have to quote a former Labour Prime Minister to make that point. If Ministers' ruses succeed, it will be a triumph of ministerial manipulation over real open and reasoned debate.
      Apart from my name and distant antecedents, I do lack Welshness, but if I could claim to be Welsh I would feel insulted that Wales is to be treated in that way. It did not work with Norway's accession to the EU and there is no guarantee that it will work with Wales.
      Mr. John Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in the debate. This is my first opportunity to address the House since my return at the general election, and, if you will allow me, I shall take this opportunity to thank colleagues on both sides of the House for the warm welcome that I received on my return and for their assistance in helping me to settle back into the House.
      I also place on record my thanks to the people of the Vale of Glamorgan—the jewel in the Welsh crown—for returning me at the last election, following my short absence after the intervention of the overseas vote in 1992.
      It is an illustration of the level of ignorance and arrogance that abound in this debate that we are even here to discuss the amendment. That it could come from the other place in this form proves to me, and, I believe, to the people of Wales, just how little the Opposition and Members of the other place who voted this through know and understand about my country, Wales. They could not have challenged the decision to separate the dates for the referendums if they had had a cursory understanding of our country, which is much smaller than Scotland, does not have the same media infrastructure and is a completely different country. That explains why the two proposals before the two countries for both the referendum and the subsequent Bill are completely different.
      Mr. Ancram: If that is the case, why have only a week? The hon. Gentleman's argument suggests that one needs more time to make a distinction between the two.
      Mr. Smith: A week is ample time for the people of Wales, who are very intelligent, talented, and able to make a decision. What we do not want is for the debate to be dominated in the media in the immediate run-up to the referendum by the Scottish arguments.
      Mr. Gray: If Welsh people are as intelligent, able and far-sighted as the hon. Gentleman describes, surely they
      392
      could see through the discussion of the Scottish devolution question in the press that week and make up their own minds in Wales, without our necessarily having to make the votes a week apart.
      Mr. Smith: We would support the fullest and most informed and open debate on this referendum. That is why we want all the arguments aired in the media in the week running up to the vote.
      Mr. Grieve: When the matter was first debated in the House on Second Reading, we were assured that there would be ample time for discussing the Bill before the referendum. Then we were told that the Bill would not be published, and we would have the White Papers. Now we have them, and, effectively, we have five hours to discuss them both before Parliament goes into recess. How can that be a full discussion of the issues so that the people can make an informed choice?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an important, contentious and serious matter. A large number of hon. Members are trying to catch my eye, and, as we know, there is a limited amount of time for debate. If interventions could be kept short and few, it would assist the flow of the debate.
      Mr. Smith: I thank you for those comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am beginning to regret extending thanks to both sides for my warm welcome back.
      I must tackle an important point, which makes the difference between the two debates and votes that will take place in Scotland and Wales. As I said, Wales is a different country, and it faces different problems. One problem that I hope will be discussed in the run-up to the referendum on 18 September is that of the absence of a business voice for Wales—an absence which has developed in the past 18 years.
      Hon. Members talk about this debate being a threat to the unity of the United Kingdom, and of a yes vote undermining that unity. Nothing could be further from the truth. A yes vote will strengthen the bond within the United Kingdom, not merely through a devolution of political power—important and essential though that is—but through what in some respects is more important: the devolution of economic power following the concentration of the past 18 years.
      That concentration undermines the fabric of the United Kingdom—the fact that 35 per cent. of the gross domestic product of this country is now produced in a small part of the United Kingdom: in London and the south-east of England. A concentration of wealth has been moving in that one direction for far too long. If we do not reverse that concentration and the spread of jobs and investment, there could be serious problems for the bonding within this great country, the United Kingdom.
      One of the main reasons why there has not been a diversification and devolution of economic power and investment in Wales is the appalling business image of Wales that has developed in the United Kingdom in recent years. The majority of investors in Wales do not come from overseas, and they are not indigenous. The majority of investment in the Principality comes from the rest of the United Kingdom. Two thirds of all investment in Wales is predominantly English, and as a country we depend on it.

      393
      I am sure that hon. Members are aware from earlier debates on the general subject that Wales has done well in attracting direct foreign investment—in fact, double the United Kingdom average. That is a good record, and one to be proud of.
      What hon. Members may not be aware of—it is an issue that needs to be introduced in the run-up to the referendum, and a reason why we undoubtedly need a second date—is that Wales under-performs in relation to the other regions of the United Kingdom when it comes to the share of UK investment. That partly explains why, in 1979, Wales was the highest waged economy in the UK and now it is the lowest. That would explain why, in 1979, we produced above the average GDP per capita in the United Kingdom, but now Wales has the lowest, at 85 per cent.
      We have attracted direct foreign investment; we have failed to attract investment from the United Kingdom. In other words, we can attract Lucky Goldstar from Korea—the other side of the world—but we have a great deal of difficulty in attracting investment from the other side of the Severn bridge, because we do not have a business voice for Wales. We do not have a focus for getting the message across that Wales in general, and south Wales in particular, is one of the most attractive investment locations in the European Union; the majority of investors in the United Kingdom think that it is not.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman considerable latitude on his return to the House, but he is an old hand, and he knows that he must speak to the terms of the amendment.
      Mr. Smith: I am attempting to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by stressing the unique economic problem facing Wales that can be addressed only if we have votes on separate days. I want to make the point as clear as I can, because it causes me, as it should the people of Wales, great concern.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes some powerful points, but to get all those points across to the people of Wales in one week would be rather difficult. Surely the referendums should therefore be either on the same day or, as has already been suggested, six months apart.
      Mr. Smith: The people of Wales are entirely able to appreciate the point and make up their own minds on the matter.
      Mr. Evans: As a Welshman, who has spent most of his life in Wales—I have been in politics for 23 years, 17 of which were in Welsh politics—I know that the Welsh people are intelligent and able. We should either have the referendums on the same day—because the Welsh people are intelligent enough to know that they are being offered something different—or sufficiently far apart to enable them to concentrate on the fact that the referendums are different.
      Mr. Smith: The people of Wales are extremely talented, intelligent and able. That is why they cleared out the Tories at the last election.
      394
      We, and other regions of the United Kingdom, do not succeed in attracting our fair share of UK investment, mostly because of sheer ignorance, especially in London and the south-east of England. When asked how far south Wales was from London, more than 80 per cent. of English investors got it wrong by more than 100 miles.
      When asked what were the dominant industries in south Wales—now, in 1997, not in 1937 or 1947—more than half the respondents thought that it was still dominated by coal and by metal manufacture, and was full of slag heaps and smoking chimneys. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that has impeded investment. People think that Wales, and industrial south Wales in particular, is a remote investment region in the European Union. That is stopping British investment into Wales.
      Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case about ignorance throughout the United Kingdom of affairs in Wales. I agree that there is considerable ignorance about Scottish and Welsh affairs, and, indeed, devolution.
      Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the referendums are to take place on 11 September and 18 September, it would have been much better if the Government had had the courage to wait until the people of Wales and Scotland—and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom—had had the chance properly to consider what devolution would really mean? To overcome the ignorance of which he spoke, should not the devolution Bills have been put before the people before they were asked to vote in a referendum?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the House that interventions should be brief and to the point; they should not be small speeches.
      Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was not an intervention; it was indeed a speech.
      I want to draw attention to perhaps the most worrying and disturbing reason why UK investors do not invest in Wales.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) back to the House, but I wish that he would concentrate on the amendment. We have limited time to discuss this issue, and his speech amounts to no more than a Government filibuster. I urge you to bring the hon. Gentleman to order.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is responsible for deciding whether hon. Members are speaking to the point, but I must tell the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) that I was in the Chamber when the other Deputy Speaker asked him to speak to the amendment, since when he has conspicuously failed to do so. I should be grateful if he would now do just that.
      Mr. Smith: I will indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I am trying to make about the amendment is that there are distinct and different arguments to be advanced in the run-up to the referendums for Scotland and Wales. That is why we most definitely need to have the votes on different days.

      395
      We do not attract our fair share of investment because of the sometimes appalling attitude towards us of English investors.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now bring his remarks to a very prompt close?
      Mr. Smith: I will indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The voice for Wales, the Welsh Assembly, could do a great deal in a short time completely to turn round the false business image of the Principality that exists in London and the south-east of England. That is why we should disregard the Lords amendment, and the people of Wales should vote resoundingly yes on 18 September, in the interests of the future jobs and prosperity of our country.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I think that it was P. G. Wodehouse who said that it was not difficult to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scot with a grievance. Perhaps we could say that it is not difficult to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Member of Parliament with an English constituency who has a grievance against Scotland and Wales. This parading of anti-Scottish and anti-Welsh prejudices will do absolutely nothing for any prospects of the revival of the Conservative party in those countries.
      Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman will sit down for a second, I will give way to him a little later. I intended to make a very brief speech, but if the Conservative party continually diverts me with a series of interventions, who knows how long I could go on?
      Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman's point about a hatred for Scotland and Wales among my hon. Friends is entirely false. He will know, if he has studied his Dod, that most of those who are speaking in this debate—even if, like me, they represent English constituencies—are 100 per cent. Scottish. I love Scotland more than he does, if I may say so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As much as he does, then. On what grounds does he accuse us of hating Scotland?
      Mr. Salmond: I do not try to evaluate hon. Members' love for their countries as the hon. Gentleman does. Whether he loves Scotland more than I do is a matter for debate, but in electoral terms, the people of Scotland certainly love my party more than they love his party or him personally, and his love of Scotland does not extend to trying to further his political prospects there; he obviously considers the pastures greener down south.
      An interesting survey was conducted of Scottish attitudes to the Conservative party. I was not surprised to find that the majority of people in Scotland felt that the Conservative party was anti-Scottish, but I was surprised to find—this was just before the general election—that the majority of people who intended to vote Conservative thought that the Conservative party was anti-Scottish. I rest my case on that point.
      Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an apposite moment. Will he do all in
      396
      his power to correct the misapprehension among the Scottish people? There are no anti-Scottish Members in the House as far as I am aware. Or is it part of his party's programme to foment resentment among the Scottish people to promote his nasty nationalism?
      Mr. Salmond: I have often pronounced myself one of the most anglophile of all Scottish Members. I am prepared to defend that. I have certainly forgotten more about English history than many Conservative Members have ever learnt. We present our case for Scotland in a positive way. We do not spend our time being antagonistic about other nations. That contrasts heavily with the attitude of the Conservative party.
      Mr. Jenkin: No.
      Mr. Salmond: At a time when a majority of Conservative voters in Scotland feel that the party is anti-Scottish, I believe that it is reasonable for me to draw that to the attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the remnants of the Conservative party and try to convince them that his party is not anti-Scottish, rather than direct his remarks to me.
      Furthermore, at a recent Scottish Conservative conference held in the aftermath of the general election, one of the few things on which the delegates agreed was that the great difficulty that the party suffered was that it was seen as anti-Scottish. I have to say to Conservative Members gathered here that that seems to be a reality.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has changed his tune.
      Mr. Salmond: I have not. I am trying desperately not to be condescending or patronising to the hon. Gentleman, who is making it difficult for me not to be. I shall try not to patronise him.
      I offer a piece of gentle advice—that the nature of the arguments and the way in which they are put by Conservative Members is not conducive to an enormous revival of the Conservative party's fortunes in Scotland and Wales. In my party political interest, I suppose that I would say, "Keep putting the arguments in the way you are doing. Keep at it. You will continue to return zero Members of Parliament in Scotland." It would be impossible under proportional representation to return zero Members of the Scottish Parliament, but if the Conservative party continues to operate in the way it is, as a party and as a front organisation for the think twice campaign, there will be a prospect of its gaining no Members of the Scottish Parliament.
      I intended to address some brief remarks to the amendment before I was led astray by the serried ranks of Conservative Members. Is there an argument that one cannot have change, whether constitutional or other, on different days in different countries of the United Kingdom? There may or may not be, but it is certainly not an argument that will be put with any conviction by the Conservative party. I seem to recall that the poll tax—a huge instrument of taxation—was introduced by the Conservative party, not a week earlier in Scotland than elsewhere but a full year earlier.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: The benefit was yours.
      Mr. Salmond: The benefit was ours, yes. The Conservative party will have to acknowledge that the cost

      397
      of the poll tax in administrative terms and in transitional relief was £1,000 million. If Conservative Members are worried about the cost of the Scottish Parliament, they might dwell on the fact that it would be possible to run a Scottish Parliament for half a century for the cost of one bad, undemocratic, unresponsive decision forced upon the Scottish people by the Conservative party.
      Nor does a Unionist party make a good case when it argues that constitutional change must take place on the same day in different countries. According to that argument, Wales could not have joined the Union until Scotland did, and Scotland presumably could not have joined until Ireland did. It is a farcical argument. If one accepts that Scotland and Wales are nations, surely they have the right to decide, whether on one day or another. The peoples of Scotland and Wales are adult enough to make up their own independent minds, on whatever day the referendums are held.
      A much more substantial argument about the referendum is why there will be two questions in Scotland. It is farcical. Why will there be no independence question on the ballot paper? It seems passing strange that, in the debate on the Lords amendments, instead of discussing and reflecting on matters of substance, we are involved in a debate of little matter.
      Although I caution the Conservative party that it should not continue in the vein that it has adopted, I dare say that we have a party political interest in a parade of more prejudice in the Chamber tonight. Either through its own activities or through its front organisation, the think twice campaign, the Conservative party should not place itself irredeemably in antagonistic opposition to the peoples of Scotland and Wales.
      Even within the ranks of the Conservative party, there cannot be unanimity on the wisdom of the attitude that Conservative Members portray. I know that it is difficult for Conservative Members from English constituencies, in the aftermath of an election which saw their party cleared out of the nations of Scotland and Wales, to think beyond their constituencies and their regional interests, and anticipate the reaction in Scotland and Wales to the attitude that they are striking. However, it would benefit the debate if they tried to look beyond their prejudices.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have no difficulty in supporting my right hon. Friends on this matter, because the proposals for Scotland and Wales are totally different. I think that I was the one Scot who sat through the Welsh debate on Friday. After listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and many other colleagues, I realised yet again that the position in Wales was different.
      The events of last week, study of the White Paper, the hype surrounding the White Paper, the image created by the party at Edinburgh castle and, not least, The Scotsman on Friday morning going simply overboard, confirmed my view that we are at the beginning of a motorway without exit to something indistinguishable from a separate Scottish state.
      Therefore, I believe that there should be two statements in the referendum. The first should be, "I want to remain part of Britain." The second should be, "I want a Scottish
      398
      state separate from England." That is the choice, as indeed it may always have been. Any hope of an acceptable halfway house devolution solution evaporated with the decision to hold a pre-legislative referendum rather than a post-legislative one on the meaningful question, "Do you approve of the Scotland Act 1997–98, as passed by Parliament?"
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I oppose the Government's proposals today, in the sense that they seek to fix a date. I would prefer not to fix a date. In other words, I should prefer to adhere to the procedure in the original Bill. Perhaps I might briefly explain the reason for that.
      Devolution in Scotland can survive only if it is fair to England. I am not at the moment arguing against devolution in Scotland or Wales. I believe that it is contrary to the interests of the people of both countries, but that is a different point. Devolution can last only if it is fair to England. I believe that, if referendums are held in September—whether on the 11th or the 18th does not matter for these purposes—there will be a debate on a false understanding of the facts in Scotland and Wales. If the thing is to last, changes cannot be contemplated in Scotland and Wales which are distinct from appropriate arrangements here in England.
      If we are to have devolution in Scotland and Wales, there will be a fundamental change in the way in which we govern the United Kingdom. That could take a number of forms. It could take the form of a federal constitution, with four national Parliaments and a federal Parliament. That is one way forward, which is perfectly logical.
      Another way forward would be to say of Scottish Members that there must be a fundamental diminution in their number and role at Westminster and that they right to participate in the English debates needs to be reduced, so that—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I have reminded other hon. Members, that we are debating a narrow amendment about two separate dates for the referendums. He must address his remarks to that.
      Mr. Hogg: Forgive me, but the question that I am addressing, which is in order, is whether there should be a date fixed for the Bill or whether no date is fixed, as is the case at the moment, and it is left at the discretion of the Government to fix by Order in Council.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for the Chair to decide what is in order and what is not. I simply ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to address his remarks to the specific amendment before us.
      Mr. Hogg: Forgive me, but the question that the House is considering is whether there should be a fixed date or no date. That is the question before the House at the moment. I am arguing that there should be no date, because one must look at constitutional changes and arrangements in the broad. One needs to contemplate what changes will have to be made to the entire government of the United Kingdom before the peoples of Scotland and Wales decide whether they want devolution in their respective parts of the United Kingdom.

      399
      If one insists on a date, whether it be 11 September or 18 September, it is certain that those broader proposals will not be put forward and argued. In other words, the peoples of Scotland and Wales, if they are to vote in referendums on either 11 or 18 September, will not do so in the full knowledge of the long-term consequences to the constitution of devolution in those two parts of the United Kingdom.
      That is precisely why I say that we should not fix a date, so that we can set a later date, be it at the end of the year, perhaps next year, or the year after—it does not matter for these purposes—when we can give proper consideration to the consequences of devolution in Scotland and Wales.
      Mr. Wigley: I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument about why there should be a longer period—a much longer period, possibly, as he sees it, for a fuller debate on possible alternative solutions and the implications for the England and the United Kingdom. Would not that argument be stronger if the Conservative party had fought the general election with positive proposals for the future of Wales and Scotland, and indeed the United Kingdom, rather than arguing that a thousand-year history would come to an end, and offering a totally negative attitude towards devolution?
      Mr. Hogg: That is a matter for political debate. I am now expressing my own view. I am not hostile to the principle of devolution in Scotland and Wales if that is what the people there really want. I insist to the House on the importance of the referendums being conducted according to a full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of devolution in Scotland and Wales on the overall structures of the United Kingdom.
      That debate has not been opened up, and will not be started before the referendums in September. That is a powerful argument against fixing a date in September.
      Mr. Hanson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that I and the other 33 Labour Members elected on 1 May should break our promise to the electorate to hold an Assembly vote within the first year of the Parliament? That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking for. His party offered to maintain the status quo, and it was overwhelmingly defeated at the election.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has an obligation to speak truthfully to his constituents and to the people of Wales. I am sure that he will do so, and I am not suggesting for a moment that he would not. If he agrees with me, however, that the proposals now before the House in broad form in the White Papers for Scotland and Wales cannot be the end of the story because they do not address the problem of England and fairness of treatment for it, it follows inevitably that profound changes to the way in which we will have to govern the United Kingdom will be down the track—for example, a federal structure.
      We need to ventilate that argument before the referendums, so that the people of Wales and Scotland have an opportunity to assess whether in reality that is what they want. If they do, so be it—that is what will
      400
      happen—but we need to have an informed debate. That is why I am against a fixed date and in favour of an open date, in the I hope that I can persuade the Government that those referendums should be held on a later date rather than an earlier one.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I support the rejection of the Lords amendments, which have tried to insist on having the two referendums on the same day, because of the old problem, sometimes known as the "and Wales" problem.
      When we discuss politics and public affairs, we normally refer to England and Wales, and Wales is always the afterthought. Until quite recently, the famous entry in "Encyclopaedia Britannica" was "for Wales, see England", and reference was always to England and Wales. When it comes to discussing devolution, one always refers to Scotland and Wales. The problem of the "and Wales" afterthought is why we need a cordon sanitaire between the dates of the Scottish referendum and the Welsh referendum.
      That is also why one could not have the Welsh referendum before the Scottish referendum. That would not solve the problem, because the degree of interest in Scottish devolution even among the London media—even though, by and large, the London media are not of great relevance in Scotland—is still so great that they would discuss the Scottish referendum and devolution in preference to Welsh devolution and the Welsh referendum, even if the latter were held first. The media would simply continue to discuss Scottish devolution even after that referendum, because there would be no Welsh devolution referendum to discuss. That is the problem.
      How do we guarantee a suitable concentration of interest on Welsh devolution? We can only do so by making sure that there is a period when the Scottish referendum is over, which means that we and the London media could then concentrate on Wales.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: In effect, the hon. Gentleman is repeating the arguments made by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—that the people of Wales are incapable of making that decision, and that they are ignorant. According to the Under-Secretary, it was The Sun wot won it. It is an insult to the Welsh people to suggest that they cannot make that decision without being sanitised from the London media. He is making an argument for a delay of six months.
      Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman needs to develop a little more expertise in the affairs of Wales and Scotland before he makes contributions to such debates. Obviously he was not listening earlier.
      The issue is whether any part of the United Kingdom could expect to make an informed decision without media coverage. We rely on them. We can expect more measured coverage from the BBC, the ITV stations and Channel 4. We will also get detailed coverage from The Sun and other tabloids as well the broadsheets, which are not bound by obligations to offer balanced coverage. Among them all, however, people could expect to receive reasonably informed information.
      One cannot expect such coverage if the media do not discuss Welsh devolution. We have found that, when it is covered, it is only by having 100 per cent. horse manure

      401
      thrown at it, as we saw this morning in the article on page 1 of The Guardian, which was repeated word for word on page 1 of The Western Mail. Those articles implied that the Queen wants to tell the people of Wales that they will not get the real McCoy. This afternoon, however, we learned that that story was total garbage from start to finish.
      Unfortunately, that is the type of coverage we get. It is not serious coverage, but we would get such coverage provided the dates of the referendums were kept apart by a reasonable period. We suggest that it should be a gap of seven days, and the Opposition argue that there should be no gap, or a gap of 14 days or 28 days. They cannot have it both ways—they must think that those referendums should be held either on the same day or on separate ones.
      Mr. Evans: The same day.
      Mr. Morgan: I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that most of his colleagues have acted like a rabble on this issue. Sometimes they argue for the same day; sometimes they argue for a six-month separation. Indeed, that is what the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) suggested just now. Which do the Conservatives want? The official position of the Opposition Front-Bench team is the same day, but the rest of the Tories are in disarray.
      Mr. Evans: We say that the people of Wales are intelligent and able, so let us hold the referendums on the same day. The people of Wales can work out the issues for themselves.
      7 pm
      Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is a media expert: he sells newspapers for a living. He is known as Nigel the News. As good Welshmen, we are all agreed, of course, that the Welsh are an intelligent people. We should all be singing from the same hymn sheet—singing those old Welsh hymns such as Cwm Rhibble.
      The issue, however, is not whether the people of Wales are as intelligent as the European average—they are far above that average; otherwise they would not have wiped out the Tory party on 1 May. The issue concerns whether they can be expected to come to an informed decision in the referendum vote if there is not enough media coverage. Unless the two dates are separated, coverage of the Welsh referendum will not be separate from coverage of the Scottish one in the media—that is the problem.
      Just how intelligent coverage of the issue is became plain when Tory peers in the other place claimed that the Welsh media would do the job, and that it achieved the same penetration in Wales as the Scottish media do in Scotland. Those Tory peers distinguished themselves by calling the national newspaper of Wales the Western Morning News—until it was pointed out that that is a newspaper in the south-west of England.
      Another Opposition peer distinguished himself by saying that S4C broadcasts to north Wales in the Welsh language—until it was pointed out to him that S4C is the national Welsh language television station. These people know nothing about the Welsh media, yet they try to lecture us, representing the constituencies of Wales, on it.
      402
      In this Chamber, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) once again failed to understand the Minister's point about the "shadow effect". The problem is that 35 per cent. of the people of Wales have better television reception from transmitters in England than from Welsh transmitters, and many have no Welsh reception at all. The same does not apply to Scotland, of course.
      Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have got him off the hook of the Welsh media on a number of occasions. The important question concerns the Government's order of priorities. Why are they trying to overturn the Lords amendment when, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out, there are plenty of other, more important, issues to discuss?
      Mr. Morgan: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet absorbed the lesson of the independent academic study done in 1979, which showed that Welsh newspapers are read by only 13 per cent. of the Welsh population, whereas Scottish papers are read by 90 per cent. of the Scottish population.
      It is not just that the referendum legislation for the two countries is quite different; it is also the fact that the economic and media integration of Wales and England are very different from the Scottish situation. So a separation of the arguments in the media can be achieved only by two referendums held on separate days—seven days apart, under the Government proposal.
      Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you well know, I am all for free speech. Is it in order for the Conservative Whip to tour the Conservative Benches discouraging Conservative Members from speaking in the debate? He almost cut off my old university friend, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), in full flow.
      Self-determination for Scotland, self-determination for Wales—but is it not in order to allow Tory Members self-determination?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The order in which hon. Members speak, and whether they choose to speak at all, are not matters for the Chair.
      Mr. Donald Gorrie: The Conservatives are trying to raise to a point of principle the idea that two referendums must not be held a week apart. They seem to be a new form of Seventh Day Adventists. If the Almighty managed to create the world in seven days, the Welsh electorate should be able to absorb the necessary arguments in seven days. It is rubbish to maintain that the referendums can be held on the same day, although miles apart, but not a week apart.
      Another suggestion is that the Government are cunningly following a plot devised by the European Union—successive voting. That great plot clearly did not work for the EU, in that Norway did not vote the right way. So if it is a plot, it is not a very clever one.
      It is complete rubbish to say that adequate information was provided before the last referendum, as anyone who took part in it—I doubt whether many Conservative Members did—will testify. There was a serious lack of information, and that had an adverse effect on the result.

      403
      The Conservatives have also pooh-poohed the idea of the Government putting out a piece of paper summarising the White Paper. The Conservatives say that that is propaganda and a wicked misuse of public funds. I remind them that the Conservative Government spent a great deal of public money on propaganda in favour of the school boards, in favour of opting out—they hoped in vain that lots of Scottish schools would go for it—and in favour of local government reorganisation. There is thus a long history of Governments setting out information for the benefit of the citizen. Thereafter it is up to the yes and no campaigns to produce their own propaganda.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who appears to have gone, argues that the exercise will lead inevitably to independence. I see no example in history of an intelligent form of devolution leading to independence. Indeed, there are many examples to the contrary. A federal system can lead to a country staying together which would not otherwise have done so. That will happen with this form of devolution.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many of us have been waiting with great patience to speak on the Lords amendment. You have already said that Members should direct their remarks to the amendment. Would you care to repeat that ruling?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those matters can be safely left to the Chair.
      Mr. Gorrie: I am rebutting, one by one, arguments advanced in this debate.
      Another Conservative argument is that we should do nothing until it becomes clear what should happen throughout the United Kingdom. One of the great merits of the Government's proposals for Scotland and Wales is that they will cause the English to think more carefully about how they want England to be run. That will be a great step forward. We should support the Government, because the arguments against holding the referendums seven days apart are spurious.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: I wholly agree with the excellent arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). The media attention that Wales would attract is certainly a key issue. There is certainly a Wales and England question, which my hon. Friend set out cogently.
      I wholly reject the argument that we need more information. To those who have been slumbering, I would point out that there has been a general debate going on since the early 1970s and beyond in Wales and Scotland about the broad issue of devolution. The public will not be moved to vote either yes or no by the details of the Bill. They will come to a general view as to whether they believe that there should be an Assembly. The subsections of the Bill will be wholly irrelevant. If we are to have an intelligent and separate decision, as we suggest, we must proceed broadly along the lines that the Government want.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: There is a much more fundamental question, and perhaps the
      404
      hon. Gentleman will answer it. Given that the possible outcomes of both referendums will be to alter dramatically and irrevocably both the powers and the constitution of the United Kingdom House of Commons, how can it be justified that the English should be altogether excluded from the referendums?
      Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman set out that case at great length and with great cogency during the previous debate. We can raise as many bogeys as we will about fundamental change in the UK constitution as a whole, fragmentation and the slippery slope to the break-up of the United Kingdom, but I believe that our people are far too mature to fall for those bogeys.
      Let me end by saying, yes, there are powerful arguments of substance, but there is also the question of procedure. On an issue relating to elections, the manner in which elections should be held and the timing of elections, the other place should exercise a certain restraint. We should not put particular weight on the views of the other place on matters of electoral politics. By definition, its Members are not themselves subject to elections, so we should give little weight to what they have to say. We should proceed as we were minded to proceed and reject what the other place has put forward. Let the people of Wales have what we want—our own referendum, unaffected by that in Scotland, on which we can have our own debate. Let us reject the amendment.
      Mr. Hain: I shall reply briefly to the debate and take up especially the points made by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box. I shall go further and welcome him to come into Wales and campaign for the no vote—indeed, I am tempted to offer him his fare on the strength of his contribution this evening. The image presents itself of Essex boy—or perhaps I should say Essex boyo—invading Wales and taking on the people of Blaenau Gwent and the Rhondda. I invite him to come to the Neath valley—to Cwmllynfell or Ystalafera—to parade his wares around the doorsteps and press his case for a no vote. He would get a swift response, however, because the people of Wales are supporting Labour's campaign for a yes vote.
      I was fascinated by one of the hon. Gentleman's slips of the tongue, when he said that he was not interested in helping the no campaign. That really shows that the Tories are on the run. Last Sunday, his leader pulled the rug from underneath the entire Conservative opposition, by saying that he virtually conceded that the Government would win the yes vote in Wales and Scotland and that he would not seek to reverse the decision. The right hon. Gentleman effectively conceded the case for devolution in Scotland and Wales, and now the hon. Member for North Essex says that he is not interested in helping the no campaign.
      Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman tried to ride two horses at the same time, by saying both that he was opposed to the Government's proposals for Scotland and that he wanted those for Wales to be the same. In other words, he wanted a no vote in Wales because there were no tax-raising powers in the proposals for a Welsh Assembly. He really should clear his lines and decide what his opposition is based on. The hon. Gentleman also asked why Wales was not going first; I shall tell him. Quite simply, Wales is not going first because Scotland's

      405
      school holidays are earlier than those of Wales and we want the people of Scotland and Wales to have the opportunity when they come back from their holidays to hear the arguments on both sides of the case and then to make up their mind fairly and freely.
      The hon. Gentleman then made the extraordinary pronouncement on behalf of the Front-Bench spokesmen and officially on behalf of the Conservative party that referendums were an instrument of Nazism and fascism. Is he really saying that? We should be told. Is the Conservative party now saying that it will never support referendums in Britain because they are instruments of Nazism and fascism? That is the real face of the Tory party—denying the right of the people of Wales and Scotland to be consulted about our proposals for a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) also made a revealing slip, when he said that he might concede that the referendum should happen next year, or the year after, or the year after that—disappearing over the horizon. Why does he say that? Because he does not want a referendum and because he is afraid of the result whereby the referendum will give an overwhelming mandate for our proposals for a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly.
      7.15 pm
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman is also inviting the Government to do something that the previous Government did just about every other week they ruled, which is break our promises to the electorate. We promised that the people of Wales and Scotland would be offered a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament after a referendum in our first year of office. We are fulfilling our election promises in that respect, as we are doing in so many other areas of policy.
      In conclusion, the Conservatives are really frightened of democracy. They are frightened of putting the matter to the people's vote in the referendums. I am not surprised that they are frightened of democracy, because they were wiped out in terms of parliamentary representation in Scotland and Wales. I am confident that we shall win the referendums in Scotland and Wales, and when we have done so, not only shall we have delivered democracy to Scotland and Wales, but we shall have beaten the Conservatives yet again.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 134.

      Division No. 75]

      [7.17 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainger, Nick

      Barron, Kevin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Battle, John

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Beard, Nigel

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Ashton, Joe

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Benton, Joe

      Baker, Norman

      Berry, Roger

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Best, Harold

      Banks, Tony

      Betts, Clive

      406

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Boateng, Paul

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Borrow, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Brake, Thomas

      Fearn Ronnie

      Breed, Colin

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Flint, Caroline

      Burden, Richard

      Flynn, Paul

      Burnett, John

      Follett, Barbara

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Butler, Christine

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Byers, Stephen

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Fyfe, Maria

      Caborn, Richard

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Caplin, Ivor

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Caton, Martin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Cawsey, Ian

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gorrie, Donald

      Church, Ms Judith

      Grant, Bernie

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clelland, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hancock, Mike

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hanson, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

      Harvey, Nick

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cooper, Yvette

      Healey, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cox, Tom

      Heppell, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Hesford, Stephen

      Crausby, David

      Hill, Keith

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

      Hope, Phil

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hutton, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Ingram, Adam

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Denham, John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jamieson, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Drew, David

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      407

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Pearson, Ian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pendry, Tom

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keetch, Paul

      Pike, Peter L

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Plaskitt, James

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pond, Chris

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lepper, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Levitt, Tom

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Linton, Martin

      Rammell, Bill

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rapson, Syd

      Livsey, Richard

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Lock, David

      Love, Andrew

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McAllion, John

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooker, Jeff

      McCabe, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonnell, John

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McFall, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Salmond, Alex

      McLeish, Henry

      Salter, Martin

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sanders, Adrian

      McNulty, Tony

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacShane, Denis

      Sawford, Phil

      McWalter, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McWilliam, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Marek, Dr John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Michael, Alun

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

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Milburn, Alan

      Spellar, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mitchell, Austin

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stevenson, George

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moore, Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stringer, Graham

      Morley, Elliot

      Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mountford, Kali

      Swinney, John

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mudie, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Oaten, Mark

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Todd, Mark

      Olner, Bill

      Touhig, Don

      408

      Trickett, Jon

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Truswell, Paul

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Willis, Phil

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Winnick, David

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Tyler, Paul

      Wise, Audrey

      Vaz, Keith

      Wood, Mike

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wray, James

      Wallace, James

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wyatt, Derek

      Watts, David

      Webb, Professor Steve

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mr. Graham Allen and

      White, Brian

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after "and" insert "income".
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.
      Mr. McLeish: The people of Scotland will be asked whether they agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament and whether it should have tax-varying powers. The amendment would require specific reference to income tax-varying powers.
      The key to this is to understand what the people of Scotland are asked to agree with. It is not some vague notion of an independent Scotland or some never-never promise of better things to come from the Conservative party; they will be asked whether they agree with the Government's proposals, and it says so on the ballot papers.
      The Government have set out their proposals in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament", published last Thursday. Chapter 7 sets out the financial arrangements for the Scottish Parliament, including the tax-varying power. Opposition Members are no doubt familiar with it. It says:
      "Subject to the outcome of the proposed referendum on this issue the Scottish Parliament will be given a power to vary tax.
      The Government propose that the tax varying power should operate on income tax".
      It is crystal clear that the tax-varying power on which the referendum asks the people of Scotland to give their views is the power to vary income tax. The chapter describes in detail how the system would operate, the amount by which tax could be varied, who would be liable to pay it and what would happen in the event of the UK income tax structure changing.
      We have consistently argued that the questions to be put to the people should be at the level of principle, backed up by the detail contained in the White Paper. If we are to add the word "income", why not also include the 3p in the pound limit or a definition of who should pay the tax? We could keep adding qualifications until the questions on the ballot papers were half a page long. Similarly, we shall not ask on the ballot papers whether a Scottish Parliament should have powers over the health service in Scotland or over any other matters set out in the White Paper.
      410
      I accept that a balance must be struck between keeping the questions simple and giving voters enough details so that they clearly know what they are voting for.
      Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the Minister look behind him and comment?
      Mr. McLeish: Such a question does not require an answer. In any case, I should not like to dignify it.
      Mr. Dalyell: Quality always makes up for numbers.
      Mr. McLeish: I never have a problem with my hon. Friend's interventions. This evening, a completely fatuous amendment has been debated for a very long time because Conservative Members have not wanted to debate matters of substance.
      Mr. James Wallace: I understand that the Government's proposals have been made available to the electorate in a shortened form. Can the Minister tell the House the extent of the detail on the tax proposals and when he expects those will go through letter boxes?
      Mr. McLeish: At this stage, I am afraid that I cannot give the response required, but I shall write and confirm those details.
      We believe that our original wording is right. Tax-varying powers are a sufficiently important aspect of the Parliament's powers to warrant a separate question, but it is not necessary to specify every aspect of the powers in the questions. That is done by the White Paper. To add the word "income" would create a false sense of precision. The referendum in Scotland will seek consent for the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers. The people of Scotland understand well enough what they are asked without the amendment.
      Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. McLeish: I shall not give way at this point, but I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a minute.
      It is important in this brief debate to look at schedule 1 to the original Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill to capture the fact that the questions must be seen in the context of the White Paper. I draw Opposition Members' attention to page 23 of the White Paper, from paragraph 7.11 onwards, which deals with tax-varying powers. Paragraph 7.12 says:
      "The Government propose that the tax varying power should operate on income tax, because it is broadly based and easy to administer. Income tax is relatively simple and easy to understand and has none of the difficulties associated with the other major tax bases: different rates of VAT on different sides of the border would cause practical problems and there would be specific difficulties with EU rules; corporation tax would place an unreasonable burden on companies operating in Scotland; National Insurance is inappropriate because of its direct link with the social security system; and council tax and non-domestic rates would over-burden the local government finance system and undermine the accountability of local government to its electorate."
      I submit—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) should sometimes think before he opens his mouth. He should know that what we call

      411
      "non-domestic rates" are business rates in Scotland. A trip up north may make him more familiar with the language that I am trying to use as part of this wider educational exercise this evening.
      I submit that the questions on the ballot paper are linked to the White Paper. Naturally, the White Paper spells out in detail what we intend and do not intend. Referring back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), an objective summary will go to every household in Scotland and will cover his point.
      Miss McIntosh: On the educational exercise, will the Minister inform the Scots of the tax implications if they lose the 19 per cent. advantage in public sector expenditure that they currently enjoy? Will that be put to the Scots in the referendum campaign? Income tax will have to increase substantially if they lose that tax advantage from the UK.
      Mr. McLeish: The education issue is important. When we start to link the tax-varying power with the Barnett formula and the other assigned budget implications, a full discussion and debate on the White Paper are required, as well as an insight into the debate taking place in the Scottish press on the tax-varying power.
      The crucial point is that no one will put a cross on the ballot paper on 11 September without knowing in detail the implications of the Government's policies. We think that that is right and it is what the Scottish people want. On 11 September, they will be able to exercise a choice.
      Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend refers to an objective summary. Who is to decide whether it is objective? What is objective in the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and in my view may be two entirely different things.
      Mr. McLeish: Without getting lost in the tautology or the semantics of a definition of objectivity, I believe that we are trying to summarise the key elements of a substantial and well-received White Paper to ensure that, when people vote, they have the benefit of that exercise and the objectivity that we could bring to it.
      I recognise the cynicism of those on the Conservative Opposition Benches; old habits die hard. We want to make certain that people understand what they are voting about. People must be able to choose between options. They will have a chance to say yes or no. That is an important element of the democracy that we are trying to bring to the referendum.
      Mr. John Swinney: Will the opportunity be taken in that objective exercise to present information that would knock aside the fallacy produced by the Conservatives that Scotland is subsidised, and set out some of the arguments advanced by the Treasury before the last general election, which showed that since 1979 Scotland had generated a budget surplus of £27 billion to the United Kingdom?
      Mr. McLeish: I will not be drawn down that road so late in an evening. Suffice it to say that the hon. Gentleman's party will be part of a yes, yes campaign in
      412
      Scotland. It is important to note that the Liberal Democrats will be involved in a yes, yes campaign north of the border. The Labour party will be involved in a yes, yes campaign. It is conspicuous that the Conservative party will not be represented. The think twice campaign—the no, no campaign—is merely a front, not for the Conservative voters of Scotland but for the out-of-touch Conservative leadership in the House, as has been ably demonstrated this evening by Conservative Front Benchers.
      I have no difficulty in welcoming the fact that we will have a referendum. It is crucial that there are questions on the Parliament and on the tax-varying powers. We have conclusively linked the questions on the ballot paper to the White Paper, which contains substantial comment on the tax and answers the questions involved. I hope that the House will reject Lords amendment No.2.
      Mr. Michael Ancram: Once again, we have heard from the Minister a mixture of condescension and bluster. The one thing that we never get from him is an answer. I hope that he begins to learn that he is now a Minister. He should start behaving like a Minister, not like a member of the Opposition. He holds an extremely important ministry in the Scottish Office and he should be worthy of it. What we have heard from him tonight and in previous debates has been entirely unsatisfactory.
      The Minister said something extraordinary. He said that the position was clear—it is all about income tax; there are no other taxes. He went on to say that the amendment would create a false sense of precision. What on earth does that mean? The one thing that the people of Scotland need before they vote in a referendum is a sense of precision.
      At present, there is no sense of precision. If the amendment were allowed to stand, there would be the precision that the only tax that could be varied would be income tax. I know, as do my hon. Friends, why the Minister is not prepared to allow a false sense of precision. It would be false, because not only income tax is being spoken about.
      Failure to accept the amendment confirms that there is a can of tax worms lying beneath the surface of the document, and the Minister hopes that when the people of Scotland find that out after the referendum, it will be too late. It is sleight of hand to pretend that the reference is only to income tax. There are back-of-the-hand taxes, indirect taxes and a vicarious tax.
      I realise that the Minister considers it essential to keep that from the Scottish people before 11 September. I shall ask him one or two questions to demonstrate why I hold that view. If income tax is the only tax concerned, why will he not accept that description, which makes the position clear?
      The Secretary of State said in his statement last Thursday:
      "Subject to the outcome of the referendum, the Scottish Parliament will be given power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by up to 3p."
      Fair enough. He went on to say:
      "The Parliament will have a guaranteed right to raise or to forgo up to £450 million—index-linked—irrespective of changes in the UK income tax structure."—[Official Report, 24 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 1043.]

      413
      What happens—this is the key question—if there is a change in the bands, which is not declared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a change in taxable income, as happens at boom times and at times of recession, when 3p would raise more or less than £450 million? If it raises less, from where will the extra money come to maintain the guarantee that a Scottish Parliament could raise up to £450 million, as the Secretary of State said?
      If the limit is 3p in the pound and that 3p will not get £450 million, which is guaranteed, the money will come from somewhere else—not income tax. That is why the Minister is not prepared to have that descriptor in the Bill.
      I shall ask the Minister straight and hope that, for once, he will answer straight: under the proposals, would the Scottish Parliament be able to raise new taxes—for example, by the introduction of a property tax, as is rumoured in some of the Scottish papers, or some other form of indirect taxation? Will the Minister categorically say yes or no?
      Mr. McLeish: The answer is no. The Parliament will have no powers to do that.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Ancram: We move on, then, to the next question. Does the White Paper's empowerment of a Scottish Parliament with control of local government expenditure, non-domestic rates and other local taxation allow restructuring of those forms of local taxation, or altering of the amounts that go to local government for those?
      Would it be possible for a Scottish Parliament to decide to retain some of the revenue support grant to pay for its own programmes, possibly to make up for the shortfall in the £450 million, knowing that the effect would be to force councils to put up council taxes to meet it? If that power exists, does the Minister agree that that may not be a direct form of taxation, but that it is a back-door form of taxation? Would the Scottish Parliament be able to do that, or would something prevent it?
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned business rates or non-domestic rates. Is it within the power of the Scottish Parliament to restructure non-domestic rates in such a way that more taxation is borne by businesses in Scotland? In effect, the Parliament will have found a back-door means of raising revenue.
      Mr. Hogg: As he is posing questions to the Minister, I ask my right hon. Friend to draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 7.26 on page 25 of the White Paper, which states:
      "The Scottish Parliament will be responsible for determining the form of local taxation … It will therefore be able to alter the form of the council tax, or replace it if it so decides."
      That is a reference to the Scottish Parliament's power to introduce a variety of local taxes to replace the council tax. Unless we limit the schedule in the manner proposed in the other place, it could be treated as an authority for doing that.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for finding yet another indication in the White Paper that the Minister's initial assertion—that
      414
      income tax is the only tax-varying power available to the Scottish Parliament—is incorrect. I hope that the Minister will face that fact.
      Will the Minister also confirm whether the power to alter or restructure local government taxation would allow for the introduction of a local sales tax, for instance? Would that then allow a Scottish Parliament to hold back some of the non-domestic rates or revenue support grant to finance—again, through the back door—its own programmes in a way that is not possible through income tax? Will the Minister also explain what provision his income tax calculations make for the variations between pensioners—who apparently will have to pay income tax on their pensions in Scotland—and those who have savings or dividends and are not pensioners? What provision has been made to meet the variations that that could cause in the tax base?
      In all seriousness, I urge the Minister to make a clear statement tonight. The Scottish people are already concerned about the prospect of having higher taxes than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. They already fear the disadvantage that they would experience in terms of business competitiveness and living standards. The Minister may disdainfully accuse us of not representing Scottish constituencies, but I have on-going Scottish connections and I visit Scotland. I know that people in Scotland fear the imposition of 3p on income tax—and their fear that there is a can of tax worms waiting to be opened is even greater. Everything that I have said tonight suggests that there is such a can of worms.
      The Minister could calm the fear that other taxes are hidden within the foliage of the White Paper by accepting this simple amendment. If the Minister persists in rejecting the amendment, there can be only one interpretation, and it will strike fear in the hearts of Scottish taxpayers, whether direct or indirect. New taxes are the only possible explanation. Conservative Members are appalled by the crass proposition to have variable income taxation within the United Kingdom. We believe that that will work only to the disadvantage of Scotland—both businesses and individuals. We are even more appalled by the Government's covert agenda for further taxes.
      The tartan tax is a body blow. The existence of a collection of clan tartan taxes, each more invidious than the other, would amount to a horrifying deception of the people of Scotland. We need to know what those taxes are. The only honourable way in which the Minister can deny the existence of such taxes is by withdrawing his disagreement with the Lords amendment and by clarifying that income tax will be the only tool available to the Scottish Parliament. If he does not take that opportunity tonight, we shall ensure that the people of Scotland are made aware of the can of tax worms that lies within the White Paper. We shall ensure that the canny people of Scotland—who are canny in every sense of the word—are not taken in easily by the deception perpetrated by the White Paper.
      Mr. Dalyell: Leaving the worms metaphor aside, the measure is a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.
      First, there is the "3 per cent. question". If more and more people, under Government policy, are removed entirely from tax liability, the burden of the 3 per cent. rate will be borne by a reducing percentage of the

      415
      population. The Scottish Parliament's spending plans would then be increasingly dependent upon decisions about tax rates taken in Westminster, over which it would have no control.
      Secondly, there is the "who pays question". Will everyone domiciled in Scotland be affected? What are the consequences for Inland Revenue? Will tax officers at Bootle, Shipley, London and elsewhere have to sort out Scots tax from English tax, and what will be the costs of so doing? Is it feasible in a single United Kingdom administrative and fiscal region to have different tax rates applying to the earnings or investment incomes of different citizens according to where they live or work in the United Kingdom?
      Thirdly, there is the "peripatetic question". Will there be a wholly arbitrary exemption for companies? What will be done about peripatetic business men—or Members of Parliament, for that matter—who spend more than half the year outside Scotland? We might not be caught by the residency rule but, if we escaped, one can imagine the howls of outrage.
      Fourthly, what about English people who are on "temporary secondment" to Scotland for six months? Will they be treated as being resident for a whole tax year, and therefore subject to higher Scottish income tax?
      Fifthly, there is then the "question of tax varying". Assuming that the Barnett formula will be retained, what will be the consequences for the financial arrangements between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom if the Scots decide to increase income tax by 3p in the pound? Will the United Kingdom Government be expected to put the same amount into Scotland as though the income tax were the same as in England and Wales? If the Scots decided to cut taxes, would English taxpayers be expected to make up the difference?
      Sixthly, I have alluded to the "Chirnside question" before. I must save time. It raises the same issues as the Boston tea party.
      Seventhly, there is also the question of tax investment. If devolution leads to a higher-cost economy in Scotland, we must make decisions that take account of that fact. Firms such as Scottish and Newcastle would be deeply affected by this. Whatever one thinks about the management of such firms, the fact is that they employ many of our constituents. If there is a choice to be made between investing in the north or just south of the border, that will become a factor. We are not talking about taking operations away from Scotland; the issue is one of new investment in Scotland and is mixed up with the problems of rotating staff between Scotland and England.
      Eighthly, there is also the "company question". Will there be a wholly arbitrary exemption for companies? What are the implications of having two fiscal regimes within one economy? The effect of a uniquely Scottish tax would be serious. Mutual and life assurance companies are concerned that any additional Scottish tax could result in clients moving to English companies for fear of incurring extra taxation. If tax levels in Scotland were made higher and business regulations different on either side of an artificial border, the extra costs and hassle would drive enterprising Scots investment and jobs to the bigger markets and wider opportunities south of the border.
      416
      Ninethly, there is the very important "pensions question". Pensions are taxed as income, like wages and salaries. Does Scotland want a system that gives pensioners a financial incentive to retire to England? I have spent eight consecutive years considering Finance Bills. Anyone who has been in Committee Room 10 night after night will know that they are vital questions that must be answered pretty quickly.
      Mr. James Wallace: Hon. Members may recall that I made it perfectly clear on Second Reading and in Committee that the Liberal Democrats were sceptical of, and opposed, the second question. However, the House voted for it, and we must consider the consequences of deciding the precise wording. Perhaps it does not matter over much, as I think that the Government have the balance of the argument. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) pointed out, at the prompting of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), that the Scottish Parliament could alter or replace the form of council tax and could devolve control of non-domestic rates to councils. That would be a tax-varying power in addition to its income tax power.
      With regard to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), it is made perfectly clear in the White Paper that the Government believe that income from dividends and savings should remain exempt from any income tax variation, so there would not be the kind of concerns that were being raised. The fact that there will be differences shows that, if one simply puts income tax on the ballot paper, it would give a misleading impression. People might think that all who are personally liable for income tax would be subject to the variation, whereas in fact only part of a person's income tax liability would be subject to the variation.
      8 pm
      Mr. Hogg: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a learned Gentleman. If the Government really mean to limit the question to income tax, why should not the Bill say so? Surely the meaning of a Bill should be clear on its face. I do not understand why, if it is the Government's intention that the question be limited to income tax, the Bill should not say just that.
      Mr. Wallace: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words.
      I think that I said that the Scottish Parliament will have the power to vary local taxation. The power to vary income tax is the power to vary not the whole of income tax, but only one part of it. Part—income from dividends—will be excluded. Therefore, it could potentially be misleading. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it should be on the face of the Bill. We are talking about a ballot paper that will refer to the Government's proposals. I have already questioned the Minister about how far the abbreviated objective form of his proposals will go. If he heard the House today with regard to the tax-varying powers, he will have understood from the mood of the House that it must be full and complete. If that is what people are being asked to vote upon, it is important that, on that specific point, they are given a considerable amount of information.
      I regret that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has left the Chamber. I did not mean to be ungallant towards her. She referred to an education

      417
      process, but her very question betrayed the fact that her understanding of the Government's proposals which will be put in the referendum was limited, and that is why the education process is needed. She said that the Scottish people would have to face up to the fact that they would lose some expenditure advantage and that income tax rates would rise enormously. For a start, the White Paper makes it clear that the Barnett formula has been retained. It also puts a limit on the powers of the Scottish Parliament to vary taxation. Therefore, the very premises of her question were wrong. That is why she should acquaint herself with the terms of the White Paper.
      Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so gallantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) not being here, may I point out that the information that she was using came not from political sources but from the Scottish Law Society, which is a very fine body and well able to interpret what it sees in a White Paper? The confusion that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted would not exist if the Prime Minister had kept his promise to publish the Bill before the referendum.
      Mr. Wallace: I think that my interpretation of the White Paper is better than that of the Law Society of Scotland, if that is what the Law Society of Scotland has said. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that when he replies to the debate.
      Dr. Liam Fox: Is not what the hon. Gentleman is describing the essential fraud of the second question, which is that, even if the second question is rejected by voters, any Scottish Parliament would still have tax-varying and raising powers?
      Mr. Wallace: Inasmuch as it has powers with regard to local government taxation, the answer is yes. However, it ill becomes the architect of the poll tax to make such a point. The very man who stood at the Dispatch Box tonight and said how appalling it would be for Scotland to be out of line with the rest of the United Kingdom was the very man who imposed the poll tax upon Scotland a year ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Let me keep this as simple as I can. The White Paper is there. A shortened version will be presented to the Scottish people. Let the Scottish people decide. I trust that they will decide yes.
      Mr. John McAllion: I intervene only briefly. I have to be brief anyway, given the guillotine. So far in this debate, for the past three hours, the only Scottish Back Bencher who has spoken has been my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I rise in part just to make it clear to the House that my hon. Friend does not represent the views of Labour Back Benchers. In fact, he is a bit of a loner in terms of his views on a Scottish Parliament.
      I sometimes wonder whether my hon. Friend and I stood on the same election manifesto at the recent general election when we were committed to holding a two-question referendum. I am committed to a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers and I am here to argue for the manifesto on which both of us were elected. I only wish that he were here to do precisely that as well.
      As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, it is the height of hypocrisy for Tory Members to come here and worry about back-handed,
      418
      back-door taxes being imposed on the people of Scotland. During the past five to 10 years, Tory Governments have continually cut revenue support to local councils, forcing them to increase council tax as a back-door method of taxation. For the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) to accuse the Labour Government of trying to do that is unbelievable hypocrisy, particularly coming from the very man who argued that Scotland should pay higher taxes than anywhere in the United Kingdom when he introduced the poll tax legislation a year in advance of it being applied anywhere else in the United Kingdom. He did not worry about Scots paying higher taxes at that time.
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Mr. McAllion: I am not giving way. There is no time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made several long speeches tonight and the Scottish people will be delighted if he has to button his lip for a change.
      Earlier tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was complaining about the effect of the tax-varying powers on local government in Scotland. He complained about the unified business rate. He referred to the negative impact of the Scottish Parliament having control of the unified business rate on Scottish businesses in particular. I am a personal friend of my hon. Friend, but I must ask him in all sincerity whether he has any conception of how arrogant is that argument. He is saying that only this Parliament can possibly get it right when it comes to business taxes in Scotland; that any other Parliament elected by the Scottish people would, by definition, be inferior to this Parliament; that it could not come to the right decision about how the business rate should be applied in Scotland or about whether the council tax or a local income tax was the way in which to finance local government services. He is saying that we in Westminster are so superior that other Parliaments could not possibly get it right when we always get it right.
      Any hon. Member who has been here for the past 10 or 20 years knows how many local government Bills have been forced through the House, almost every one of them destroying one aspect or another of local government; almost every one of them getting it wrong in one way or another.
      I, as a Scot, would be delighted if control over local government finance were transferred back to Scotland and decided on by elected representatives of the Scottish people who live in Scotland all the time, who are much closer to Scottish businesses and who understand the Scottish dimension much more than people in this Chamber ever can.
      My hon. Friend should start to realise that Scotland is a nation with national rights, which is every bit as good as any other part of the United Kingdom and can come to decisions that are in the interests of the Scottish people. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Devizes had changed his views and joined us on the Labour Benches, he would still represent a English constituency rather than one in Scotland. His views will not be tolerated in Scotland. That is why he had to go to Devizes. The Edinburgh people threw him out a long time ago and they were right to do so.
      The reality is that all the changes proposed by the Labour Government, both in terms of varying the rate of income tax and giving control over the finance of local

      419
      government to Scotland, are well known to the Scottish people. The Scottish Constitutional Convention has been debating those issues for six years. It has widely publicised its views. There has been a huge debate in Scotland. Everyone in Scotland knows what the powers of a Scottish Parliament will be. They are in the White Paper that was published only last week. There will be a debate between now and the referendum, but everyone knows the kind of powers that will be given to the Scottish Parliament. It is hokum and bogus for the Opposition to—
      It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Supplemental Allocation of Time Order, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the said Order.
      The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 131.

      Division No. 75]

      [7.17 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainger, Nick

      Barron, Kevin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Battle, John

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Beard, Nigel

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Ashton, Joe

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Benton, Joe

      Baker, Norman

      Berry, Roger

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Best, Harold

      Banks, Tony

      Betts, Clive

      406

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Boateng, Paul

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Borrow, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Brake, Thomas

      Fearn Ronnie

      Breed, Colin

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Flint, Caroline

      Burden, Richard

      Flynn, Paul

      Burnett, John

      Follett, Barbara

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Butler, Christine

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Byers, Stephen

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Fyfe, Maria

      Caborn, Richard

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Caplin, Ivor

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Caton, Martin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Cawsey, Ian

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gorrie, Donald

      Church, Ms Judith

      Grant, Bernie

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clelland, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hancock, Mike

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hanson, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

      Harvey, Nick

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cooper, Yvette

      Healey, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cox, Tom

      Heppell, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Hesford, Stephen

      Crausby, David

      Hill, Keith

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

      Hope, Phil

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hutton, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Ingram, Adam

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Denham, John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jamieson, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Drew, David

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      407

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Pearson, Ian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pendry, Tom

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keetch, Paul

      Pike, Peter L

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Plaskitt, James

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pond, Chris

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lepper, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Levitt, Tom

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Linton, Martin

      Rammell, Bill

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rapson, Syd

      Livsey, Richard

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Lock, David

      Love, Andrew

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McAllion, John

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooker, Jeff

      McCabe, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonnell, John

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McFall, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Salmond, Alex

      McLeish, Henry

      Salter, Martin

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sanders, Adrian

      McNulty, Tony

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacShane, Denis

      Sawford, Phil

      McWalter, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McWilliam, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Marek, Dr John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Michael, Alun

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

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Milburn, Alan

      Spellar, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mitchell, Austin

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stevenson, George

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moore, Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stringer, Graham

      Morley, Elliot

      Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mountford, Kali

      Swinney, John

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mudie, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Oaten, Mark

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Todd, Mark

      Olner, Bill

      Touhig, Don

      408

      Trickett, Jon

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Truswell, Paul

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Willis, Phil

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Winnick, David

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Tyler, Paul

      Wise, Audrey

      Vaz, Keith

      Wood, Mike

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wray, James

      Wallace, James

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wyatt, Derek

      Watts, David

      Webb, Professor Steve

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mr. Graham Allen and

      White, Brian

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Amess, David

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bercow, John

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Blunt, Crispin

      Boswell, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Leigh, Edward

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Burns, Simon

      Lidington, David

      Butterfill, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Luff, Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Clappison, James

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Madel, Sir David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mates, Michael

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Merchant, Piers

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Day, Stephen

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Norman, Archie

      Duncan, Alan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Page, Richard

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Paice, James

      Evans, Nigel

      Paterson, Owen

      Faber, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Fabricant, Michael

      Prior, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Flight, Howard

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Ruffley, David

      Gale, Roger

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Garnier, Edward

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gibb, Nick

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gill, Christopher

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gray, James

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Green, Damian

      Spring, Richard

      Greenway, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Steen, Anthony

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Streeter, Gary

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hammond, Philip

      Syms, Robert

      Heald, Oliver

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      409

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Townend, John

      Willetts, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Trend, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Walter, Robert

      Wardle, Charles

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. John Whittingdale and

      Wells, Bowen

      Mr. James Cran.

      Division No. 76]

      [8.9 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Caton, Martin

      Ainger, Nick

      Cawsey, Ian

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Church, Ms Judith

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ashton, Joe

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Baker, Norman

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Clelland, David

      Banks, Tony

      Clwyd, Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Coaker, Vernon

      Barron, Kevin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Battle, John

      Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cooper, Yvette

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cousins, Jim

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cox, Tom

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cranston, Ross

      Benton, Joe

      Crausby, David

      Berry, Roger

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Best, Harold

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Boateng, Paul

      Borrow, David

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brake, Thomas

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Breed, Colin

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Denham, John

      Burden, Richard

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Butler, Christine

      Dismore, Andrew

      Byers, Stephen

      Dobbin, Jim

      Caborn, Richard

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Drew, David

      Caplin, Ivor

      Drown, Ms Julia

      420

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Edwards, Huw

      Keetch, Paul

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Feam, Ronnie

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Loma

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Flint, Caroline

      Lepper, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Levitt, Tom

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Love, Andrew

      Galloway, George

      McAllion, John

      Gapes, Mike

      McAvoy, Thomas

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McCabe, Stephen

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Macdonald, Calum

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McDonnell, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McFall, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      McIsaac, Shona

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McLeish, Henry

      Gorrie, Donald

      McNulty, Tony

      Grant, Bernie

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gunnell, John

      Marek, Dr John

      Hain, Peter

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hanson, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Maxton, John

      Harvey, Nick

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Merron, Gillian

      Healey, John

      Michael, Alun

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Milburn, Alan

      Heppell, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hill, Keith

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moore, Michael

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hope, Phil

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mullin, Chris

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hutton, John

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Ingram, Adam

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Olner, Bill

      Jamieson, David

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pearson, Ian

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pendry, Tom

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      421

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Stringer, Graham

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Rammell, Bill

      Stunell, Andrew

      Rapson, Syd

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Raynsford, Nick

      Swinney, John

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Timms, Stephen

      Ruane, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Todd, Mark

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Touhig, Don

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Trickett, Jon

      Salmond, Alex

      Truswell, Paul

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sawford, Phil

      Vaz, Keith

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wallace, James

      Sheerman, Barry

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Watts, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Webb, Professor Steve

      Singh, Marsha

      Welsh, Andrew

      Skinner, Dennis

      White, Brain

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wills, Phil

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wise, Audrey

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wood, Mike

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

      Wray, James

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Spellar, John

      Wyatt, Derek

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stevenson, George

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Arbuthnot, James

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Baldry, Tony

      Duncan, Alan

      Bercow, John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Blunt, Crispin

      Evans, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Faber, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fallon, Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Flight, Howard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Burns, Simon

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Butterfill, John

      Gale, Roger

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Garnier, Edward

      Gibb, Nick

      Chope, Christopher

      Gill, Christopher

      Clappison, James

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Gray, James

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Green, Damian

      Greenway, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Cran, James

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Hammond, Philip

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Heald, Oliver

      422

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ruffley, David

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Key, Robert

      Spring, Richard

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Steen, Anthony

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Swayne, Desmond

      Leigh, Edward

      Syms, Robert

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Luff, Peter

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tredinnick, David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Trend, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Viggers, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Walter, Robert

      Madel, Sir David

      Wardle, Charles

      Malins, Humfrey

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Merchant, Piers

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Willetts, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Paice, James

      Woodward, Shaun

      Paterson, Owen

      Yeo, Tim

      Pickles, Eric

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Prior, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Mr. Malcolm Moss and

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Mr. John Whittingdale.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos 7, 10, 15 and 16 disagreed to.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Question in respect to the amendments designated by Madam Speaker, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.
      Lords amendments Nos 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18 agreed to [some with Special Entry].
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments.
      Lords amendments Nos. 3,4,8 and 9 agreed to.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Question on motions made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendments.
      Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 disagreed to.
      Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 6 agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Dr. Liam Fox, Mr. Peter Hain, Mr. Oliver Heald, Mr. John McFall and Mr. Henry McLeish (Chairman); Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. McFall]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE
Ordered,
That a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords, as the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, to review parliamentary privilege and make recommendations thereon;
That three be the Quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; and to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Ordered,
That Sir Patrick Cormack be discharged from the Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr. Richard Shepherd be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Mr. Grieve: On a point of order, Sir Alan. We have been subject to a timetable motion this evening. I understand that the purpose of such a motion is to enable the House to transact its business within a time framework that allows full discussion. In the circumstances, is it not extraordinary that we are concluding at 8.25 pm a debate on major constitutional issues that are to be put to the people of Wales and Scotland? With a sensible timetable motion, we could have debated those issues for a further hour and 35 minutes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We have been debating the issues on the basis of a timetable motion that was agreed by the House.

Closed Circuit Television
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
8.26 pm
Mr. Damian Green: I am glad to have the chance to debate this topic. It has particular significance for my constituency, but it also has national significance for hon. Members in all parties, given the successful spread and use of closed circuit television schemes over the past few years.
The purpose of the debate is to elicit guarantees from the Government on two specific issues that are extremely relevant to the future success of CCTV schemes and, most important, to their spread. First, there are the guidelines for applications. Towns and other localities that wanted CCTV schemes had become used to the competitions that were organised under the last Government, but there is now some doubt about how the Government intend to proceed with those applications.
Secondly, and perhaps even more important, is the question of money—whether the Government will commit enough to allow this extremely successful form of crime prevention and deterrence to continue in the current Parliament as it did in the last. I hope that if, by the end of this short debate, the Government have made those two commitments, we can all—as Madam Speaker put it earlier today—pack our buckets and spades in a much happier frame of mind.
Tenterden, in my constituency, is a small town, which is normally peaceful. There is a good deal of civic pride and community involvement in the town, which, in many respects, is the model of a small English market town, in which worries about crime are not at the forefront of people's minds. Nevertheless, over the past decade or so, fear of crime has increased markedly in Tenterden, and, I dare say, in many towns like it throughout the country. Shops in the high street have been ram-raided, local policemen have been injured in fairly serious attacks, and there is a general feeling, particularly among the elderly, that the place is not as safe as it used to be.
Therefore, the town council, in partnership with local bodies such as the police and the local business community, has decided to apply for CCTV to be installed in the town. The council applied last year, but for various reasons it did not succeed. It is trying again, and there is a new scheme on the table for 12 cameras to cover the most important parts of the town centre. The council thinks, and I agree, that that would have a dramatic effect on crime in Tenterden.
Not only is the town council trying again, but it is trying with a will. Over the past few weeks, while it has been trying to put together the town's contribution towards the cost of the scheme, it has received 400 pledges of money from individual citizens. In less than a month, it has raised £5,000, which is half the target for personal donations. The council has promised another £10,000, and Ashford borough council has promised £35,000. The town centre group, which is organising the scheme, is confident of raising £30,000 from the town's 200 businesses. The total cost of the scheme is about £250,000.
Some unease is being caused by lack of knowledge about the bidding guidelines, and the council would like to have that matter cleared up as soon as possible.

425
As I have said, the council is already in the successful throes of raising money, and it would be easier to do that if it knew the exact form in which the application should be made. I appeal to the Minister to give the people of Tenterden, and no doubt those in many other places, some certainty about that. I hope that the debate can be the means by which we can move forward on that.
The people of Tenterden and I are keen to move positively on the scheme. That is evident from what is happening on the Stanhope estate in Ashford in another part of my constituency. It has had many of the problems associated with inner-city areas. There have been problems with drugs, petty crime and vandalism. In many ways, Stanhope and Tenterden are different, but the people of Tenterden and other villages can see how effective CCTV can be in an area that has had much bigger problems with crime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I want to answer the debate as fully and as accurately as I can, but I am little puzzled. The hon. Gentleman spoke about applications from Tenterden, which I think he described as a village; perhaps it is a village—I am not sure of the exact description. I apologise for not knowing that, but the hon. Gentleman did not say that he would raise this specific topic. As far as I am aware, there has been no application from Tenterden. Perhaps he could clarify the issue, because it will be difficult to answer questions about applications if there have not been any.
Mr. Green: The town was included in a wider application by Ashford borough council. Tenterden is one of the Cinque ports, but its council is not a borough or district council. It has a town council because Tenterden has a proud history. I am surprised that the Minister knows nothing about the application, because I shall shortly quote from a letter that he sent to me on the subject.
CCTV is only part of a long-term policing initiative, and on the Stanhope estate its effects as part of a wider policing initiative are clear. Since 1993, when CCTV was introduced, recorded crime has gone down by 42 per cent., violent offences have gone down by 30 per cent., burglaries have gone down by 16 per cent., and car theft has fallen by 46 per cent. That is clear, hard evidence of the beneficial effects of that form of policing. It is not a panacea, but it helps, and, significantly, it is extremely cost effective.
There are many fixed CCTV schemes, and I hope that the Minister will agree that the next stage should be mobile schemes. My constituency, and no doubt many others, contain villages in which full-time, fixed CCTV would not be cost effective or worth while. However, specific crime hot spots would be well served by mobile systems, which could be prominently displayed as a deterrent or quietly installed to catch specific criminals.
The Minister spoke about being confused. In a letter to me dated 12 July he stated:
"We are considering the future of CCTV Challenge Competitions as part of our review of existing expenditure programmes. A decision on whether there will be another round of the Competition—and if there is, what form it would take—will be made later in the summer."
426
It is now later in the summer, and I hope that the Minister can say when that decision will be made. The delay is slightly disheartening, because there is much evidence that many local authorities have succeeded in bids after failing the first time.
To broaden the issue from the problems in my constituency to the national picture, I should tell the House that so far there have been three competitions and that the Government have paid out more than £37 million. As a result, there are now more than 6,000 closed circuit cameras in operation, many of them doing extremely good work. I am aware that there have been some objections. In particular, it is said that CCTV infringes civil liberties and that rather than cutting crime it simply shifts it to areas that are not covered by cameras.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Perhaps I could draw my hon. Friend's attention to my constituency, which has two borough councils. Runnymede has a Conservative-controlled authority and Elmbridge is controlled by a coalition of Liberal Democrats and ratepayers.
Runnymede recently switched on a splendid CCTV scheme, which already makes a significant contribution to controlling local crime. Perhaps more importantly, it is making a significant contribution to people's perception of security as they go about their business in our town centres. By contrast, the libertarian argument to which my hon. Friend alludes has been used in Elmbridge to block progress on a scheme, and no bid was submitted to the Home Office.
My Elmbridge constituents look enviously at those in Runnymede, because of the success of the CCTV scheme there. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging authorities that have used this rather spurious libertarian argument as the basis for not applying for funds to overcome their scruples and become part of the vigorous progress towards CCTV being installed everywhere?
Mr. Green: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have said that CCTV is a nationally important issue, and he confirms it. Plainly, some people misguidedly use the libertarian argument in opposing CCTV. In support of my case, I can do no better than quote John Stevens, the former chief constable of Northumbria:
"The bottom line is that law-abiding residents have nothing to be afraid of, but criminals have plenty to worry about."
The fact that criminals have plenty to worry about brings more people on to the streets and increases freedom, especially for old people and women, who might otherwise be afraid on the street.
There is clear public support for the installation of security cameras. The chief constable of Dyfed-Powys, Raymond White, has said:
"We are now seeing a clear public demand for this technology … the public find CCTV systems very reassuring, second in value only to a patrolling police officer."
There are genuine success stories. I have mentioned the one in my constituency, but, throughout the country, the figures show that CCTV is a successful form of crime prevention. In Newcastle, 6,200 fewer crimes were recorded in the first four years after CCTV was installed, and in Brentwood in Essex, police crime statistics for April to October 1994 show an overall reduction in crime

427
of nearly 40 per cent. In Workington, crime was reduced by 50 per cent. from its level the year before, when the town did not have CCTV.
All those figures from different areas and different types of community show that CCTV is a cost-effective weapon in the fight against crime. As a result, the previous Government went into the election promising £75 million over the course of this Parliament for new CCTV schemes. Those schemes would have produced more than 10,000 new cameras, and they would have been funded through public-private partnerships. Central Government, local authorities, the police, businesses and individuals would all contribute, as they want to do in Tenterden.
That seems to me the ideal non-partisan scheme. It is widely agreed on both sides of the House. As this is an Adjournment debate, perhaps we can lower the normal temperature in the Chamber. [Laughter.] That is not difficult at the moment, with so few of us here. There are now many areas, especially those connected with law and order, in which there is some non-partisan consensus. Apart from all being against crime, we are now also all in favour of public-private partnerships, and of making every pound of public expenditure go as far as possible.
CCTV fulfils all those ideals. None the less, the Government have not yet committed themselves to maintaining the spending commitment set by the previous Government.
Mr. Michael: Nonsense.
Mr. Green: I do not understand why the Government have not done that. One does not need a review when a policy is working as well as CCTV. If the Minister is prepared to say this evening that they will now meet the spending commitments of the previous Government, I shall be the first to welcome that, and so will all the people who are looking forward to having it installed in their communities.
CCTV can help to restore the sense of community that used to prevent crime in small towns such as Tenterden. Social change now means that more people are out at work and fewer people are around. The old idea that there is always someone twitching the lace curtains to see whether there are any strangers in the road does not apply any more, and CCTV is the best substitute for that kind of gentle personal policing, which used to work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said, CCTV not only catches—it deters, too. No one but the most hardened or the dimmest of criminals would commit a crime if he thought he was on camera.
I should like two commitments from the Minister. First, I want him to say that he can move forward with proper guidelines to allow people to apply for the next few years, so that they know where they are, and can proceed with their applications. Secondly, I should like a commitment that the extra £75 million promised by the previous Government will be provided by the present Government.
If that does not happen, the anti-crime rhetoric of the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues will be seen as no more than hot air. The previous Government put their
428
money where their mouth was, and were tough on crime. I invite the new Government to do the same, and I look forward to the Minister's doing so now.
8.42 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I was prepared to congratulate the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on succeeding in obtaining the Adjournment debate and on raising the subject of closed circuit television. It is possible to have a constructive and sensible debate on that issue. For one or two sentences, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be asking for such a debate, but his request stood in stark contrast to the rather partisan nature of the rest of his contribution. As I listened to him, I wondered why he had asked for the debate, and the end of his speech I am left still wondering why he bothered. He did not seem to have much to say.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the previous Government's spending commitments on CCTV, had they won the general election. But there were no such commitments—only a last-minute attempt by the Conservative party during the run-up to the election to suggest that a Conservative Government would spend £75 million over the life of this Parliament. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman rightly characterised that promise when he said that it was not their own money that the Conservatives were promising to spend, but that of the other partners that they would draw in. That was a pretty empty promise, given that the previous Government had allowed for one further round for next year and nothing more during the forward planning for Home Office spending during the remainder of this Parliament.
The hon. Member said that he wanted to elicit guarantees from this Government, and he asked for commitments. I suggest to him that he should have used his influence as a prospective parliamentary candidate in a seat likely to remain Conservative—even in the event of a landslide such as we have experienced—to persuade the then Government to pursue the policies for which he is asking. The Conservatives neither planned nor gave the sort of guarantee he is seeking tonight. It is interesting that a Conservative is willing to stand up in opposition to call for something that the Conservatives in government were not prepared to provide.
The development of CCTV depends not just on the Government putting up money, but on commitments from different organisations. During the past few years, I have visited many constituencies—controlled by local authorities of all political persuasions—and I have seen a number of places where CCTV has been installed with great success. Those concerned have not waited for Government money. Many Labour authorities in particular have, in partnership with business and the police, put money into local areas to ensure that CCTV is used to prevent and reduce crime.
Early in my parliamentary career, I spent an evening in the centre of Cardiff with the police and saw the problems that they had in attempting to deal with disorder with a very thin blue line. Local councils readily agreed to allow the police access to the cameras they had installed, primarily for traffic purposes, so that the police could deploy their limited powers in the best places to alert themselves in advance to where things were going wrong. That system was added to over the years and is an

429
example—among many—of a Labour authority recognising the problems of local people and trying to tackle them.
The hon. Member referred to a scheme costing some £250,000, although he amended his remarks to say that it is contained within a more general scheme. That may be why the scheme was not immediately recognisable and why the town to which he referred was not identifiable within the list that I had taken the trouble to brief myself on. If he had written to ask for guidelines and information on what we intended to do, we could have answered his questions. We are examining the situation, given the very limited nature of the financial commitment to CCTV that we inherited from the previous Government within a difficult financial situation.
We intend to target resources as effectively as possible. I wish to underline the fact that many CCTV cameras were installed not just as a result of a bidding process to the Government—important though that was—but because local authorities have taken initiatives. In my town of Penarth, local businesses and I approached local authorities and were succesful in the last bidding round. The initiative can come from the local Member of Parliament, the local authority or business.
The hon. Member referred to Northumbria and to the previous chief constable John Stevens, now a member of the inspectorate. During his leadership, positive partnerships were developed between the police and local authorities to target crime. By that reference, he gives me an opportunity to commend the fact that considerable improvements have occurred in Northumbria's crime figures as a result of the partnership approach. That is something that we intend to build upon during the coming years, both in terms of encouraging the police and local authorities into a partnership approach and within the provisions of the crime and disorder Bill.
The hon. Gentleman referred to civil liberties. I share the concern that sometimes there is all too readily seen the downside of CCTV. The question is not whether CCTV is a magic wand that can suddenly make crime disappear but how it, with other measures to tackle and prevent crime while increasing public confidence, will work effectively in any given area. The use of CCTV must be carefully integrated within the approach of the police, local authorities and general communities, including business communities, if it is to be effective.
I have seen some examples where CCTV has been introduced without adequate thought and planning, with the result that partners have not been brought together. These are instances where the system has been less effective than its full potential. In some instances, an area has been covered by CCTV without consideration being given to displacement and the need to pull things together.
There was an example where in one town centre the privately owned precinct had chosen not to opt into the system. The result was the generality of the town covered by CCTV—a system that the local authority had worked for and designed with the police—with a sort of black hole in the middle. That was the result of one of the partners being missing. That is worrying and we would encourage the strongest possible partnership with local authorities.
We must make every effort to avoid the displacement problems to which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred. Public-private
430
partnerships are basic. On that I could agree with the hon. Member for Ashford in his content if not his tone. I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was one of the earliest proponents of effective public-private partnerships.
In my background in local government I saw the redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff, which transformed it into a thriving and effective city centre worthy of the capital of Wales. That ensued because local authorities and the private sector came together effectively. There are other such examples in many places.
The hon. Member for Ashford has raised an important issue albeit in a slightly muddled way. I know that the CCTV systems in his constituency are well regarded and that Ashford was one of the first beneficiaries of the Home Office's CCTV challenge competition. The town was successful in the initial competition and the main town centre system went live in 1995. The initiating partnership is an example of the good practice that we want to see developed in other areas.
The local authority, the police, local business, including retailers, and the South-Kent hospital trust were fully involved. The good work bore fruit immediately. In the first year, there was a 20 per cent. reduction in thefts from motor vehicles, a 28 per cent. reductions in thefts of motor vehicles and a 13 per cent. reduction in assaults. I understand that recently the local police reported a 30 per cent. reduction overall in crime in Ashford town centre and a 42 per cent. reduction within a local housing estate. The police consider that these reductions are at least partly attributable to the introduction of CCTV.
Ashford is not unique in these respects, although it is unique in being represented by the hon. Gentleman, but all towns have to have something to make them unique. Many towns and cities throughout the country have seen reductions in crime, and sometimes large ones, as a result of CCTV systems being properly installed, planned and integrated within a partnership approach. I emphasise that CCTV is not a magic wand or a panacea. However, to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge in an intervention, it is popular.
The advantages of CCTV, properly managed, speak for themselves: crime prevention, the deterrent effect of knowing that there is observation, the alerting of police at an early stage to stop dangerous situations escalating, the operational assistance to the police in sizing up a situation, the safer convictions that can be obtained—the savings in court time can be enormous—and, above all, the fact that people's confidence is renewed, which has led to many town centres being revitalised. Vulnerable groups in particular feel the advantage.
In the minutes before the bomb exploded in Manchester, the police were greatly assisted by traffic cameras which allowed them to see at a glance where the public were, so the evacuation of the city centre could be centrally directed and people could be moved out of the area quickly and efficiently.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Ashford that mobile cameras can be useful, if deployed with care, not as a magic wand but as part of a well-targeted approach. I presented awards to special constables recently. One of them was to special constables in the Weymouth area, where CCTV images had been shown to parents to let them know what their children had been up to, which is

431
again a useful form of evidence and can discourage youngsters from taking part in illegal activities. Often, parents find it difficult to believe what youngsters are up to, so the evidence can help.
CCTV has a great deal going for it. On civil liberties and codes of practice, the previous Government rightly set as a condition for a CCTV grant that there would need to be a code of conduct. There is a need for a code of conduct to underpin all use of CCTV. There have been a few examples of abuse, such as the discredited video, "Caught in the Act", which caused immense public anger. I am happy to reinforce the message expressed by hon. Members of all parties at that time: CCTV images should be used only for crime prevention and reduction and as evidence; they should not be used for entertainment or titillation, as we do not want public confidence to be undermined.
A couple of years ago, I launched the local government information unit's publication, "CCTV—A Watching Brief', which was designed to help the development of suitable codes of practice. Where such codes have been adopted, they have operated well. In the longer term, we are considering a statutory underpinning to ensure that a few cowboys misusing the available film do not undermine public confidence.
I stress that, as I said in the letter to which the hon. Member for Ashford referred, we are reviewing existing expenditure programmes and reassessing priorities to ensure that the best use is made of the available resources. In response to a question from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), I said:
"It is only sensible for an incoming Government to undertake a comprehensive review of expenditure and of the way in which resources are used. It is in that context that we are examining how we use the money available for CCTV."—[Official Report, 7 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 605.]
I was referring to the money set aside by the previous Government for CCTV in 1998–99.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that the previous Government made provision only for 1998–99. They made none for the years after that, despite the extravagance of their promises and claims during the general election campaign. It is amazing how a general election concentrates the minds of the sort of Governments that we have had for the past 18 years.
Mr. Green: For all that the Minister says that the money was only there for 1998–99, am I right in believing that he is giving no guarantee that that money will still be there in 1998–99?
Mr. Michael: I am saying exactly what I have said to the hon. Gentleman previously—that we are undertaking a comprehensive expenditure review and considering the best use of the resources available. The Conservative Government failed to make provision for the extravagant
432
promises that they made in the build-up to the general election. He is now a Back-Bench Member of a party which lost the election by making extravagant promises when it was too late. Despite the rhetoric of the Conservative party about its commitment to CCTV, it made no provision in government for CCTV after next year.
My aim is to achieve our commitment to tackle crime and its causes comprehensively. We have to do that within the resources that have been left to us. We shall do it in a way that is in the best interests of the country as a whole. I shall not make any further commitments at this stage other than to say, as I have said before to the House, and as the hon. Gentleman quoted me in a letter as saying, that I shall announce my decision on the future of CCTV funding later in the summer.
Even if we had the money that was promised during the general election campaign by the Conservative party, but not by the Conservative Government, it would not meet the demand for CCTV across the country from the public and others. There is a responsibility in local areas for local bodies—that means everyone, certainly the police and the local authority as well as the local community, including the local business community—to consider what can be done to contain, prevent and reduce crime. Where CCTV is needed as part of a comprehensive package to meet the needs of an area, the possibility of government assistance will be dealt with when we make the announcement that I have promised in a parliamentary answer and in my letter to the hon. Gentleman.
There certainly will not be enough money to provide all the schemes that imagination and need could project. That was certainly the case under the previous Government, because many schemes were: lot funded, although many went ahead because the local authority and the community moved things forward. So it would not be sensible for any area to depend on the possibility of Government money.
If there is a further bidding round, we shall consider applications objectively and as carefully as possible. Our announcement will suggest the ground rules and we shall answer the detailed questions on which the hon. Gentleman said that he would like guidance. We shall make the position clear when we make a statement about the way forward, but that should not be the be-all and end-all. It should not be the end of consideration of how to meet the problems of crime in a local area. Nor should the possibility that Government money is available to help. Government money will not meet the whole of the bill in any event.
Questions about whether Government money will be available to help in a particular area should not discourage local authorities from considering how they can use CCTV and other tried and proved methods in a properly integrated way to deal with the specific crime problems of the area.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Nine o ' clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sentences
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average sentence for an offender aged over 18 years on a first conviction for a domestic burglary offence according to the most recent figures available; [10860]

  (2) how many offenders aged over 18 years on a third conviction, or on a conviction after three or more previous convictions, for an offence of domestic burglary received a non-custodial sentence according to the most recent figures available; [10862]

  (3) what is the average sentence for an offender aged over 18 years on a third conviction, or on a conviction after three or more previous convictions, for an offence of domestic burglary according to the most recent figures available. [10863]

  Mr. Michael
  The most recent available information comes from a sample of nearly 700 domestic burglars, aged 18 years or over, sentenced in March 1996. Of those with no previous convictions for domestic burglary, 46 per cent. received a non-custodial sentence. The average custodial sentence length for offenders on a first conviction for domestic burglary was 13.9 months. Of those who had at least two previous convictions for domestic burglary, 23 per cent. received a non-custodial sentence; this represents about 1,000 offenders in a full year. The average custodial sentence length for offenders on a third or greater conviction for domestic burglary was 16.8 months.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average sentence for an offender aged over 18 years on a first conviction for a class A drug trafficking offence according to the most recent figures available; [10861]

  (2) what is the average sentence for an offender aged over 18 years on a third conviction, or on a conviction after three or more previous convictions, for a class A drug trafficking offence according to the most recent figures available. [10864]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not routinely available because class of drug was not recorded for central sentencing statistics before 1993. A special study was carried out on repeat drug offenders sentenced in October to December 1994. For the offenders aged 18 or over in the study, the average custodial sentence length for those convicted of a third or subsequent class A drug trafficking offence was just over four years. First-time class A drug traffickers were not covered by the study.

  Licensing Laws
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the licensing laws to bring opening hours for private clubs into line with those for public houses; and if he will make a statement. [11085]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Opening hours for registered members' clubs are in line with the general permitted hours for licensed premises. I have received no proposals relating to this particular area of licensing, and have no present plans for change.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) to what factors the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate attributed the weight loss in the rabbits found being stored at the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school; [11200]

  (2) what recommendations for changes in procedure at Charing Cross and Westminster medical school have been made by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate; and what action has been taken; [11202]

  (3) what action has been taken by his Department to reappraise the project of cat operations at the Institute of Neurology. [11206]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Between March and June 1996, the inspectorate carried out a full investigation into the allegations concerning the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school and the Institute of Neurology which were made in the National Anti-Vivisection Society's report "Access Denied". We do not have any plans to reopen this matter.

  I understand that the inspectorate was satisfied that the weight loss in rabbits at the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school was a minor transient problem which can occur in any laboratory animal population. Although often considered to be stress related, no precipitating factor was found on this occasion. This was determined to have been an intercurrent problem not induced by any experimental protocol. The problem had been recognised and properly managed by the animal care staff.

  At Charing Cross and Westminster medical school, the inspectorate identified irregularities in the application of approved methods for the humane killing of animals and deficiencies in middle management. The certificate of designation was revoked. A new certificate was issued when the establishment satisfied the Home Office that:

  (a) a list would be maintained of persons competent to kill by schedule 1 methods, and the people listed would be retrained and reminded of their responsibilities under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986;

  (b) suitable standard operating procedures were in place for schedule 1 killing;

  (c) internal controls were in place to prevent the unauthorised killing of animals by other methods;

  (d) changes were made to the day-to-day animal care arrangements to ensure greater communication and clearer lines of management and responsibility between the certificate holder, the director of the animal facility and all other staff involved in animal work.

  259
  The programme of work involving cats at the Institute of Neurology was reviewed by the Home Office: the science was found to be sound and the protocols were as refined as possible. The standard of performance of the procedures was reviewed and no breaches of licence authorities were found.

  Two post-operative cats had been humanely killed to prevent further suffering. All work was suspended until the cause of the problems could be identified. The named veterinary surgeon had been consulted by the project licence holder at the time and the animals had been appropriately cared for. The causes of the unexpected level of suffering related to technical problems with the procedure. Subsequent changes to the vaccination policy, suggested by the named veterinary surgeon, resulted in no recurrence.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a royal commission on the use of animals in experiments; and if he will make a statement. [11052]

  Mr. Howarth
  We do not consider that a royal commission on the use of animals in experiments is necessary at this time. In the Animal Procedures Committee, the Secretary of State already has an excellent source of independent expert advice on all aspects of the use of animals in scientific procedures. The committee is currently reviewing the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and I expect to receive shortly a report setting out the committee's deliberations made, interim findings and initial recommendations.

  Setting up a royal commission would divert resources from progressing the committee's review, from responding to its recommendations and from other planned Home Office initiatives.

  The Government will work to ensure that the highest possible standards of animal welfare are implemented and that animals are used in scientific procedures only where this is fully justified. We will promote alternatives which replace animal use, which reduce the number of animals used and which refine procedures to minimise suffering.

  We will pursue initiatives across Europe rather than risk exporting animal experiments to countries with less rigorous controls. The measures we take must also be sustainable and must not unnecessarily disadvantage United Kingdom research, medicine and industry or compromise public safety.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the alternatives available to the use of animals in experiments. [11053]

  Mr. Howarth
  The Government will promote alternatives which replace animal use, which reduce the number of animals used and which refine procedures to minimise suffering.

  Section 5(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that applicants for project licence give adequate consideration to the possibility of achieving the objectives of the programme of work using methods which do not use animals. In addition, when assessing licence applications, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate ensures that protocols are refined to minimise the suffering to animals and the number of animals used.
  260
  The Home Office, through the Animal Procedures Committee, sponsors research into alternatives and industry itself has spent millions of pounds each year in the search for alternatives.

  The types of replacement alternatives which are available include the use of human volunteers; computer simulation and mathematical modelling; improved storage, sharing and use of results from previous animal experiments to avoid unnecessary repetition; the use of non-protected animals, micro-organisms or plants; the use of non-living tissue; physical and chemical techniques; and in vitro studies.

  Homosexuality
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the advice he has issued concerning the prosecution of private consensual homosexual acts involving males between the ages of 16 and 18 years. [11268]

  Mr. Michael
  My Department has issued no such advice. Prosecution policy is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, as the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, under the superintendence of the Attorney-General. The law provides restrictions on prosecutions for certain homosexual offences in England and Wales. Under section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, no proceedings can be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions against any man for the offence of buggery, or gross indecency with, another man or for aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or commanding its commission where either of the men were at the time of its commission under the age of 21.

  The Crown Prosecution Service applies two tests before it institutes proceedings. First, it decides whether the evidence affords a realistic prospect of conviction; secondly, if that exists, it decides whether prosecution is in the public interest. Prosecution of those under 18 is not undertaken lightly and is more likely where there is an element of seduction or corruption, coercion or force. Each case would be carefully considered in the light of its own facts.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the election of British Members of the European Parliament by proportional representation. [11488]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government recently announced their intention to introduce legislation this Session to provide for the 1999 elections to the European Parliament to be conducted using a proportionally based regional list system.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications of chapter 14 of the Amsterdam treaty for the electoral systems in the United Kingdom. [11424]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We do not believe that chapter 14 of the provisional draft treaty of Amsterdam will have an impact on the electoral system in the United Kingdom.
  261
  We have recently announced our intention to change the electoral system for elections to the European Parliament to a proportionally based list system in time for the elections to be held in 1999.

  National Lottery (Horserace Betting Levy)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the second report on the impact of the national lottery on the horserace betting levy. [12151]

  Mr. George Howarth
  An update on the impact of the national lottery on the horserace betting levy has been published today. This fulfils an undertaking made during the passage of the National Lottery Bill.

  The paper, which has been prepared by the economics unit of the Home Office, examines continuing trends in off-course betting expenditure, on which the levy is closely dependent.

  The statistical analysis suggests that, in 1996, betting expenditure off-course was about 10 per cent. below the level it would have reached in the absence of the national lottery. Horserace betting accounts for an estimated 70 per cent. of such expenditure, and therefore the levy yield is likely to have been similarly affected. This can be only an approximate figure, and the effect of the lottery may vary over time.

  Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 will be implemented; and when. [12152]

  Mr. Straw
  I will implement most of the provisions of the Act, and to the same timetable as envisaged by the previous administration. The provisions of the Act which I will implement are set out, according to the target date of implementation.

  Provisions to be implemented in 1997:
  Automatic life sentence for a second conviction for a serious sexual or violent offence (section 2).
  Mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for a third class A drug trafficking conviction (section 3).
  Technical provisions and consequential changes arising from sections 2 and 3, including the extension of the automatic life sentence provisions to armed forces legislation (sections 1.5, 6, 7, and schedule 4 as they relate to sections 2 and 3).
  New provisions for the release of those sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure (sections 28 to 33).
  Increase in age limits from 21 to 25 for use of attendance centres for fine defaulters (section 36).
  Abolition of consent requirements for certain community penalties (section 38 and related paragraphs of schedule 4).
  Transfer of prisoners between jurisdictions (Section 41, schedule 1, and relevant paragraphs of schedules 4 and 5).
  Repatriation of prisoners (section 42 and schedule 2).
  Increase in maximum penalty for juveniles convicted of indecent assault on a female (section 44).
  Naming juveniles in court proceedings (section 45).
  Hospital and limitation directions for sentencing mentally disordered offenders, (section 46 and schedule 4, paragraph 12).
  262
  Power to specify hospital units for detention of mentally disordered offenders (sections 47, 49(2) and 49(4)).
  Movement of conditionally discharged patients between jurisdictions in the United Kingdom (section 48 and schedule 3).
  Extended maximum duration of interim hospital order (section 49(1)).
  Transfer of prisoners to private psychiatric hospitals for treatment (section 49(3)).
  Committals for sentence (section 51 and related paragraphs of schedule 4). This is linked to the plea before venue provision in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (section 49) which I propose to bring into force at the same time.
  Increase in maximum penalty for indecency with a child (section 52).

  Provisions to be piloted in 1998:
  Community service or curfew order enforced by electronic monitoring for fine defaulters (section 35, and paragraph 10(2) of schedule 4).
  Community service for persistent petty offenders (section 37).
  Disqualification from driving as a penalty (section 39).
  Disqualification from driving for fine defaulters (section 40).
  Curfew order enforced by electronic monitoring for juveniles (section 43).

  Other provisions for which no implementation date has yet been decided.
  New arrangements for crediting time spent in custody on remand in calculation of sentence (sentence 9 and related paragraphs of schedules 4 and 5).
  Disclosure of pre-sentence reports to the prosecution (section 50).
  Application of mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking to service law (section 7 as it applies to section 3).

  The previous Administration said that implementation of what became section 4 of the Act would depend on the Prison Service's capacity and available resources. They said, as an "example", that these provisions could be implemented in October 1999. Because the relevant convictions do not count until the section comes into operation, very few people would be subject to the provisions of section 4 until 2001. Against this background, and given current pressures on prison capacity and available resources, it would not be practical to implement section 4 for the present. I shall, however, keep the matter under review.

  I have also decided not to implement the new early release arrangements set out in sections 8, 10 to 26 and related paragraphs of schedules 4 and 5. The same effect can be achieved in a far more clear and straightforward way by ensuring that judges and magistrates spell out in open court what the sentence they have imposed really means in practice. Sections 20 to 21, which deal with extended post-release supervision of violent and sexual offenders, are integrally linked with the other early release provisions and will not be implemented, but I will bring forward in the Crime and Disorder Bill alternative provisions which will provide the additional protection of the public which they were designed to achieve.

  Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the review of delay in the criminal justice system. [12153]

  Mr. Straw
  The review of delay in the criminal justice system was set up in October 1996 and its report was published on 27 February 1997. Interested parties were then invited to comment on the 33 recommendations in the report. My right hon. and learned Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General and I have considered these recommendations, taking account of the responses received, and we have concluded that many of them have the potential substantially to reduce delay without impairing the quality of justice.

  We have therefore decided to accept the following recommendations, making legislative provision, where necessary, in the Crime and Disorder Bill:
  those which are designed to enable straightforward guilty plea cases to be dealt with a day or two after charge, thus restoring the concept of summary justice;
  proposals for improving case management in magistrates courts by allowing certain powers to be exercised by a single justice and to be further delegated where appropriate to clerks to the Justices;
  the proposal that indictable-only cases should begin in the Crown court (subject to arrangements being agreed for dealing with remand hearings, submissions of no case to answer and related matters); and
  some recommendations for procedural changes in the Youth court.

  The recommendations relating to legal aid, which complement many of those provisions, will be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor in the light of the pervious Government's proposed reforms and Sir Peter Middleton's review of legal aid which is now in progress.

  We are not persuaded that the case for removing defendants' right of election has yet been made out, but since responses to the consultation exercise showed some substantial support for this proposal, we shall consider this question further, with a view to publishing a more detailed consultation paper in due course.

  The Government's response to all the recommendations of the review of delay in the criminal justice system is set out in a document which has been placed in the Library.

  Hong Kong Governor
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Governor of Hong Kong submitted a final report on the discharge of his functions under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990. [12154]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Governor submitted his last report to my right hon. Friend on 20 June. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Data Protection
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his proposals for the implementation of the EC data protection directive 95/46/EC. [12155]
  264
  Mr. George Howarth
  Copies of the paper setting out the Government's proposals for new data protection legislation will be placed in the Library tomorrow at 10 am.

  Dublin Convention
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Dublin convention. [12156]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The convention determining the state responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the member states of the European Communities—the Dublin convention—will come into force on 1 September 1997. The convention, which was ratified by the United Kingdom in 1992, provides a mechanism for determining which member state should be responsible for deciding an asylum application made in the European Union.

  Responsibility is determined according to a set of criteria. These include whether the applicant has a close family member recognised as a refugee in another member state; whether another member state has granted the person a residence permit or visa; the location of any illegal entry into the European Union; and the existence of a previous asylum application. The applicant can be transferred under the convention only if the receiving state agrees that it is responsible and if specific arrangements are made for the transfer. In many cases, the receiving state will not be the one from which the applicant embarked. There will be no change to the existing requirement that we must be satisfied that the applicant's life or liberty would not be threatened in the country concerned on account of his race, religion or any other factor; and that he would not be sent on to another state in breach of the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees.

  The convention provides for the exchange of information on asylum applicants with other European Union states. This may include personal information such as fingerprints. The convention requires that such information may be used only for asylum purposes and may be communicated only to the authorities competent to make decisions on asylum cases. Information about the basis of an asylum claim itself may be exchanged only with the permission of the applicant.

  Service Authorities
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an announcement about the establishment and membership of the service authorities provided for under sections 1 and 47 of the Police Act 1997 to maintain the National Criminal Intelligence Service and National Crime Squad. [12157]

  Mr. Straw
  I have decided to appoint Sir John Wheeler to chair the service authorities. I am delighted that Sir John has accepted this appointment. I have no doubt that his skills and experience will prove invaluable to the service authorities in their task of maintaining the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, both of which will substantially strengthen our ability to tackle organised and serious crime at national and international level. During his 18 years in
  265
  Parliament, Sir John chaired a number of committees and groups, including the all-party penal affairs group and the Home Affairs Select Committee.

  In 1990, he was awarded a knighthood for service to the Select Committee. He has been a justice of the peace in London since 1978 and is an active member of the Order of Saint John.

  The other independent members I propose to appoint are Paul Lever and Peter Holland. Paul Lever is chairman of BSM Group plc and of Ashworth hospital authority. He has held senior management positions in major public companies and has considerable experience in the fields of strategic and financial management. Peter Holland is an independent business consultant and is also chairman of Hertfordshire police authority. He has held senior management positions in the Reuters Group, with responsibility for human resource and financial management.

  I am also appointing Maria Callaghan to represent me in my capacity as the police authority for the Metropolitan police district. Miss Callaghan is a member of the Metropolitan police committee, chairs the Calotels Hotel Group and has extensive experience of business management. She holds a bachelor of law degree and has practised as a commercial lawyer.

  These are four of the appointments for core members, of which there are 10 in all, who serve on both service authorities. The six other core members are:

  Member

  Position

  Appointed by

  Councillor Stephen Murphy

  Greater Manchester Police Authority (LAB)

  Police authorities (East and West)

  Councillor Bob James

  West Midlands Police Authority (LAB)

  Police authorities (East and West)

  Councillor Peter Fallows

  West Mercia Police Authority (CON)

  Police authorities (East and West)

  David Veness QPM

  Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police

  ACPO

  David Phillips QPM

  Chief Constable, Kent Constabulary

  ACPO

  John Warne

  Director, Organised and International Crime Directorate, Home Office

  Home Secretary

  The NCIS Service Authority has a total of 19 members. The additional members are:

  Member

  Position

  Appointed by

  Cllr. Ron Fisher JP

  South Yorkshire Police Authority (LAB)

  Police authorities (E and W)

  Cllr. Owen May

  Devon and Cornwall Police Authority (Lib Dem)

  Police authorities (E and W)

  Cllr. Julia Sturrock

  Taysie Joint Police Board

  Police authorities (Scotland)

  Pat Armstrong CBE

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  PANI

  Ian Oliver QPM

  Chief Constable, Grampian Police

  ACPOS

  Ronnie Flanagan OBE

  Chief Constable, Royal Ulster Constabulary

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  266

  Member

  Position

  Appointed by

  Dick Kellaway

  Chief Investigation Officer, Her Majesty Customs and Excise

  Commissioners for Customs and Excise

  Duncan Macnivan

  Head of Police, Fire and Emergencies Group, Scottish Office

  Secretary of State, Scotland

  John Steele CBE OBE TD DL

  Senior Director, Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State, Northern Ireland

  The National Crime Squad Service Authority has a total of 17 members. The additional members are:

  Member

  Position

  Appointed by

  Cllr. Ken Walker

  Cleveland Police Authority (LAB)

  Police authorities (E and W)

  Cllr. Barry Murray

  South Wales Police Authority (LAB)

  Police authorities (E and W)

  Cllr. Neil Taggart

  West Yorkshire Police Authority (LAB)

  Police authorities (E and W)

  Cllr. Sir. John Grugeon DL

  Kent Police Authority (CON)

  Police authorities (E and W)

  Cllr. Elfyn Williams

  North Wales Police Authority (Lib Dem)

  Police authorities (E and W)

  Cllr. Mrs. Angela Harris DL

  North Yorkshire Police Authority (Lib Dem)

  Police authorities (E and W)

  David Wilmot QPM

  Chief Constable, Greater Manchester Police

  ACPO

  The independent members were selected in line with Nolan principles following the procedures set out by Sir Len Peach in his guidance on public appointments. The police authority members for England and Wales were selected from among the local authority members of police authorities so as to ensure that, as far as practicable, the membership of the service authorities reflects the balance of parties across all local authority members of police authorities.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that any company supplying security services to his Department should be a member of the self-regulating organisations in the private security industry. [10448]

  Mr. Straw
  Current policy on appraisal of suppliers—including those providing security services—is to include, as best practice, criteria covering membership of self-regulating organisations. We recommend that"proof of enrolment on a professional or trade register, or register of companies in the country in which the supplier is established"
  is obtained. Such membership is not in itself mandatory for prospective suppliers of goods and services to the Home Department. It is one of a range of criteria on which a conclusion will be reached about the suppliers' ability to perform the proposed contract.

  The planned introduction of statutory regulations for the private security industry, which I announced on 15 July 1997, will necessitate a review of our present guidance on supplier appraisal. This will follow a wide consultation exercise with the security industry over the next year.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which his Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10732]

  Mr. Straw
  The payment of salaries and wages to staff in the Home Office, its agencies and some non-departmental public bodies is made through the Home Office payroll, which is managed in-house. Payroll services are not provided to other Departments. Funds are disbursed through the payroll for tax, national insurance, voluntary deductions made by staff, attachment of earnings etc. Financial management information is provided to budget managers. The cost of the service in 1996–97 was £3.7 million. Chessington Computer Services Ltd., provide a standard payroll package on licence to the Home Office. A software bureau, SEMA Group, processes the payroll data.

  No management systems were purchased during the year.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [11390]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much financial support, at current prices, the Government have given to the voluntary organisation, Victim Support, in each year since 1979. [11353]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: In the following table, the annual Home Office grant to Victim Support has been revalued to 1997–98 prices using the gross domestic product deflator.

  Financial year

  Grant £million

  1979–80

  0.014

  1980–81

  0.023

  1981–82

  0.038

  1982–83

  0.031

  1983–84

  0.071

  1984–85

  0.110

  1985–86

  0.212

  1986–87

  0.466

  1987–88

  2.730

  1988–89

  3.977

  1989–90

  5.305

  1990–91

  5.948

  1991–92

  6.695

  1992–93

  8.227

  1993–94

  9.223

  1994–95

  10.866

  268

  Financial year

  Grant £million

  1995–96

  11.421

  1996–97

  12.003

  1997–98

  12.682

  The previous Government froze the grant to Victim Support at £11.7 million and made it clear that no more money would be forthcoming. However, support for victims is a top priority for us and, in furtherance of that aim, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on Friday 13 June that the Home Office was increasing its grant to Victim Support by £1 million a year, taking it to £12.7 million.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money at current prices has been invested by the Government in closed circuit television in each year since it was introduced. [11351]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: Home Office funding for closed circuit television has been provided through three rounds of the CCTV challenge competition—held in 1994–95, 1996–97 and 1997–98. Some £5 million was awarded to local crime prevention partnerships in round 1; £17.1 million in round 2; and £15 million in round 3. The funds awarded in 1994–5 and 1996–7 are worth £5.4 million and £17.6 million, respectively, at current prices.

  Awards made in round 1 of the competition have all been paid in full. Awards under rounds 2 and 3 are being paid on a basis of need as projects proceed towards implementation. Actual expenditure in 1996–7 was £9.2 million—£9.5 million at current prices.

  Funding for CCTV is available through other programmes such as the single regeneration budget. However, expenditure on CCTV is not identified separately on such programmes.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of recorded crime in each police area in England and Wales in each year since 1992. [11163]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: Information by police force area on the levels of crime in terms of numbers and percentages since 1992 is given in the table.

  269

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area

  England and Wales 1992–1996

  Police force area

  Number of offences

  Percentage change

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Avon and Somerset

  175,404

  175,946

  167,975

  152,886

  156,557

  0

  -5

  -9

  2

  Bedfordshire

  59,436

  58,847

  52,501

  51,104

  52,005

  -1

  -11

  -3

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  66,339

  65,807

  61,732

  67,652

  69,532

  -1

  -6

  +10

  3

  Cheshire

  79,491

  80,156

  74,926

  73,202

  66,214

  +1

  -7

  -2

  -10

  Cleveland

  84,312

  78,279

  81,732

  79,719

  78,608

  -7

  +4

  -2

  -1

  Cumbria

  45,336

  43,744

  42,492

  41,230

  39,739

  -4

  -3

  -3

  -4

  Derbyshire

  88,449

  91,454

  85,915

  82,380

  78,896

  +3

  -6

  -4

  -4

  Devon and Cornwall

  114,675

  121,026

  109,396

  102,193

  103,121

  +6

  -10

  -7

  1

  Dorset

  52,238

  52,091

  55,415

  54,582

  49,731

  0

  +6

  -2

  -9

  Durham

  67,315

  67,180

  65,029

  57,817

  51,849

  0

  -3

  -11

  -10

  Essex

  115,062

  114,435

  105,995

  98,097

  100,758

  -1

  -7

  -7

  3

  Gloucestershire

  60,601

  60,985

  60,371

  55,448

  53,675

  +1

  -1

  -8

  -3

  Greater Manchester

  395,195

  364,858

  338,110

  327,994

  327,976

  -8

  -7

  -3

  0

  Hampshire

  153,256

  147,074

  141,272

  134,319

  135,915

  -4

  -4

  -5

  1

  Hertfordshire

  59,129

  56,868

  54,887

  55,891

  54,441

  -4

  -3

  +2

  -3

  Humberside

  128,743

  140,988

  135,826

  128,393

  126,932

  +10

  -4

  -5

  -1

  Kent

  159,881

  161,787

  155,344

  155,251

  147,980

  +1

  -4

  0

  -5

  Lancashire

  132,138

  134,581

  127,300

  124,921

  122,487

  +2

  -5

  -2

  -2

  Leicestershire

  97,468

  99,863

  99,150

  93,607

  94,125

  +2

  -1

  -6

  1

  Lincolnshire

  49,306

  52,664

  47,767

  48,015

  47,077

  +7

  -9

  +1

  -2

  London, City of

  6,768

  5,620

  5,272

  5,727

  4,831

  -17

  -6

  +9

  -16

  Merseyside

  149,672

  142,325

  136,825

  153,385

  145,956

  -5

  -4

  +12

  -5

  Metropolitan Police

  942,876

  910,209

  853,478

  817,082

  841,784

  -3

  -6

  -4

  3

  Norfolk

  66,996

  64,319

  56,075

  51,716

  55,314

  -4

  -13

  -8

  7

  Northamptonshire

  59,550

  59,850

  57,607

  56,524

  57,378

  +1

  -4

  -2

  2

  Northumbria

  224,442

  213,936

  204,057

  194,141

  169,656

  -5

  -5

  -5

  -13

  North Yorkshire

  54,816

  57,967

  62,153

  63,539

  56,919

  +6

  +7

  +2

  -10

  Nottinghamshire

  164,417

  158,960

  152,592

  151,371

  141,307

  -3

  -4

  -1

  -7

  South Yorkshire

  137,336

  157,229

  157,089

  154,293

  151,577

  +14

  +0

  -2

  -2

  Staffordshire

  97,536

  98,421

  93,757

  91,495

  92,155

  +1

  -5

  -2

  1

  Suffolk

  44,721

  43,138

  39,393

  38,233

  37,094

  -4

  -9

  -3

  -3

  Surrey

  53,468

  52,504

  46,783

  44,313

  42,014

  -2

  -11

  -5

  -5

  Sussex

  119,364

  111,876

  107,105

  110,300

  118,086

  -6

  -4

  +3

  7

  Thames Valley

  197,799

  200,356

  186,268

  178,702

  172,194

  +1

  -7

  -4

  -4

  Warwickshire

  44,996

  45,522

  42,592

  38,906

  38,926

  +1

  -6

  -9

  0

  West Mercia

  79,175

  82,832

  83,949

  80,013

  82,254

  +5

  +1

  -5

  3

  West Midlands

  329,260

  330,091

  315,755

  318,087

  317,892

  0

  -4

  +1

  0

  West Yorkshire

  305,264

  301,838

  289,716

  283,938

  268,716

  -1

  -4

  -2

  -5

  Wiltshire

  42,229

  41,611

  38,147

  36,428

  35,911

  -1

  -8

  -5

  -1

  England

  5,304,459

  5,247,237

  4,991,748

  4,852,894

  4,787,582

  -1

  -5

  -3

  -1

  Dyfed-Powys

  28,539

  24,743

  21,602

  19,419

  19,072

  -13

  -13

  -10

  -2

  Gwent

  40,961

  40,008

  38,431

  33,034

  44,572

  -2

  -4

  -14

  35

  North Wales

  49,204

  48,102

  43,451

  41,645

  41,024

  -2

  -10

  -4

  -1

  South Wales

  168,554

  166,165

  157,748

  153,249

  141,578

  -1

  -5

  -3

  -8

  Wales

  287,258

  279,018

  261,232

  247,347

  246,246

  -3

  -6

  -5

  0

  England and Wales

  5,591,717

  5,526,255

  5,252,980

  5,100,241

  5,033,828

  -1

  -5

  -3

  -1

  Alcohol-related Crime
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the estimated cost to the police of alcohol-related incidents and offences in the last year for which figures are available. [11372]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: This information is not collected centrally. The cost to the police of responding to incidents and dealing with offences is a matter for individual chief constables.

  Senior police officers have expressed concern about the level of drink-related incidents and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) has recently announced that we will be bringing in a range of measures to tackle the particular problem of young people and alcohol, including a new offence of buying alcohol for unsupervised under
  270
  18-year-olds and clarification of the position on test purchases. The Government will also implement on 1 August the Confiscation of Alcohol Act 1997 which will give the police a discretionary power to confiscate alcohol, or what appears to be alcohol, from under-age drinkers in any public place, or any other place to which the young person had unlawfully gained access.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes there were in each year since the schemes were introduced. [11352]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: Neighbourhood watch schemes were first introduced in 1982. Statistics relating to the early years of their

  271
  development were not collected systematically. Information is available only from 1991 onwards and is as follows:

  Number

  January to December 1991

  99,149

  January to December 1992

  115,678

  January to December 1993

  130,584

  January to March 1994–95

  143,002

  April to March 1995–96

  153,260

  April to March 1996–97

  161,397

  Police (Wales)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were employed by each of the four Welsh police forces in each year since 1979. [11199]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The information is set out in the table:

  Year

  Police force

  As at March

  Dyfed-Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales

  South Wales

  1979

  910

  965

  1,268

  2,936

  1980

  926

  967

  1,275

  3,056

  1981

  932

  972

  1,293

  3,065

  1982

  920

  964

  1,286

  3,103

  1983

  927

  963

  1,296

  3,091

  1984

  921

  962

  1,290

  3,071

  1985

  910

  964

  1,271

  3,073

  1986

  930

  978

  1,253

  3,066

  1987

  932

  973

  1,286

  3,100

  1988

  917

  979

  1,300

  3,126

  1989

  931

  996

  1,327

  3,102

  1990

  935

  1,008

  1,337

  3,135

  1991

  935

  999

  1,349

  3,137

  1992

  947

  1,009

  1,347

  3,168

  1993

  967

  1,004

  1,360

  3,176

  1994

  965

  993

  1,352

  3,131

  1995

  976

  997

  1,366

  3,014

  1996

  991

  11,044

  1,378

  13,027

  1997

  1,005

  11,243

  1,369

  12,976

  1 As a result of local government re-organisation in Wales on 1 April 1996, 150 police officers were transferred from the South Wales police to the Gwent constabulary.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Asian Initiative
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many and which countries are recipients of aid under the Asian initiative. [9952]

  Clare Short
  The initiative will work in high-priority countries in terms of reproductive health needs. The main recipients are expected to be Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan and Vietnam. Other countries may be included later.

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on future levels of planned aid to Yemen. [11289]
  272
  Clare Short
  The bulk of Britain's development assistance to Yemen is provided through contributions to the World bank and European Community. Our bilateral programme focuses on the Government of Yemen's priorities for economic recovery and includes support for the World bank's programme to regenerate Aden port. Projects funded under the British partnership scheme support local non-governmental organisations and small communities. We are currently reviewing our programme.

  Sex Discrimination
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries which have not(a) signed and (b) ratified the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women; what steps her Department is taking to encourage them to do so; and if she will make a staement. [11490]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployed Graduates
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of students who graduated in June 1996 were unemployed in June 1997; and if he will make a statement. [10517]

  Dr. Howells
  The latest data available for unemployment rates of new full-time first degree graduates in the UK are for the academic year 1994–95 which show that 9 per cent. of graduates with known destination were unemployed six months after graduation. Data on the first destinations of graduates for the academic year 1995–96 will be published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency at the end of this month.

  Unemployment among newly qualified graduates has declined annually since 1992 and this decline has occurred in spite of the increased output of graduates from universities and colleges of higher education. The unemployment rate for graduates in the economically active labour force is, however, much lower than this and stood at 4.1 per cent. in 1996. Those with degrees enjoy employment rates significantly higher than those without.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of general national vocational qualification students will be attending higher education institutes from September 1997; and if he will make a statement. [10485]

  Dr. Howells
  Available information on applicants and acceptances to HE courses through the Universities and Colleges Admission Service scheme shows that in 1996 there were 21,308 applicants who had taken either units of the advanced GNVQ or the full award and were applying to higher education institutions HEIs. Of these, 13,090–61.4 per cent.—gained HE places. This compares favourably with 1995, when 5,942 UCAS applicants5–8.5 per cent.-gained places at HEIs out of a total of 10.151. A total of 168 HEIs have accepted advanced GNVQ applicants on to their courses, with 50
  273
  accepting more than 100 such applicants, including 26 with more than 200 and eight with more than 300 GNVQ entrants.

  Student Debt
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will conduct a national investigation into debts owed to universities and other higher educational institutes by graduating students; and if he will make a statement. [10519]

  Dr. Howells
  We have no plans to conduct such an investigation. Money owed to individual institutions is a matter between them and the students concerned.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate his Department has made of levels of average student debt for 2000; and if he will make a statement. [10524]

  Dr. Howells
  A typical higher education student graduating in the year 2,000 having attended a three-year course away from home and outside London would have a total debt of some £4,600 at 1997 prices if he or she took out the maximum available student loan each year. This figure excludes any commercial or family debts, information on which is not collected centrally.

  Students Loans
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of student loans from each year since the scheme's inception remain in(a) arrears and (b) total default at the latest available date; and in what proportion of cases in each year recovery action is being taken. [11473]

  Dr. Howells
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he proposes to make in respect of expenditure related to the sale of student debt prior to Royal Assent being granted to the Education (Student Loans) Bill. [12219]

  Dr. Howells
  Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Education and Employment: Programmes and Central Services vote, class IX, vote 1. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1 million will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of providing free tuition for all part-time undergraduates(a) in higher education and (b) on approved further education courses. [11182]
  274
  Dr. Howells
  We estimate that the annual cost of meeting the fees currently paid in respect of(a) all part-time undergraduates in higher education and (b) all students, including full-time students, in further education who currently pay fees would be approaching £300 million and some £200 million respectively. It is not possible to estimate the fee income from all part-time students in further education separately, though it is known to be well in excess of £100 million.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if medical students following courses of between four and six years will be required to make a contribution to their tuition fees throughout their university and hospital training. [11036]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the plans announced by my right hon. Friend in the statement that he made in the House on 23 July, full-time students in higher education would pay up to £1,000 per year depending on parental income. But, as my right hon. Friend also made clear, we shall be considering the need for appropriate measures, such as bursaries for students entering some health and social care professional courses, as well as teacher training courses, given the state's particular interest in securing a continued supply of qualified professionals in these areas. We have invited the views of representative bodies by the end of September.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make discretionary degree course fees subject to parental means-testing. [10769]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend announced on 23 July the Government's proposals to require full-time undergraduates to make a contribution to tuition fees of up to £1,000, dependent on parental income. The implications of these proposals for students who are not currently eligible for mandatory awards are being considered and will be dealt with in a more detailed policy statement in the autumn.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of employees, in each payband, in the quangos for which his Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [8962]

  Dr. Howells
  The numbers employed are too small to make percentages by payband meaningful in those executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by this Department and using civil service grades1. Overall, staff of Asian origin represent 3.6 per cent., while those of Afro-Caribbean origin represent 2.9 per cent., of the 1,570 staff. These staff are found across the grades as follows:

  Grade and equivalent

  Number of staff of Asian origin

  Number of Afro-Caribbean origin

  Senior civil service grades

  1

  0

  G6 and equivalent

  3

  0

  G7

  1

  0

  SEO

  4

  3

  HEO

  10

  2

  275

  Grade and equivalent

  Number of staff of Asian origin

  Number of Afro-Caribbean origin

  EO

  19

  14

  AO

  9

  27

  AA

  2

  1

  1 Funding Agency for Schools, Education Assets Board, Higher Education Funding Council for England, Further Education Funding Council, Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority, Equal Opportunities Commission, Teachers' Training Agency, National Council for Educational Technology, Investors in People UK Ltd.

  Comparable data are not available from the other NDPBs. The latest figures for Remploy Ltd.–11,300 people—are:

  Per cent.

  Grade group

  Afro-Caribbean black

  Asian black

  Shop floor grades

  1

  2

  Staff grades

  1

  1

  Management grades

  0

  0

  Interworkers

  1

  1

  Whole company

  1

  2

  Recent available figures for the Construction Industry Training Board, with 900 staff, and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, with 40 staff, show that 0.4 per cent. of staff were Asian and 0.5 per cent. Afro-Caribbean; 1.35 per cent. of the Student Loans Company, with 295 staff in Glasgow are of ethnic minority origin and occupy supervisory and managerial grades. Statistics are not currently available for the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, with 282 staff and the Centre for Information and Language Teaching with 22 staff.

  Special schools

  Other schools

  Schools identified by OFSTED as requiring special measures during the academic year beginning

  EBD

  Other

  Percentage

  Total

  Primary

  Secondary

  Percentage

  Total

  September 1994

  2

  3

  0.4

  5

  32

  20

  0.24

  52

  September 1995

  14

  9

  1.8

  23

  61

  20

  0.37

  81

  September 1996

  12

  16

  2.3

  28

  117

  26

  0.65

  143

  Student Grants
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what means he will ensure that the removal of higher education maintenance grants will not restrict access for students from lower-income families. [11049]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government recognise that participation in higher education by students from poorer homes is closely related to educational achievement up to 18 years of age. The policies set out in our White Paper "Excellence in schools" should greatly improve educational opportunities for all children.

  The current student support arrangements have not encouraged students from lower-income families to enter higher education. The Government are therefore proposing to replace the existing mixture of maintenance grants and student loans with new system of loans which will be repaid by graduates in work. The new system will be fair and progressive, as repayments will be related to

  Dance and Drama Students
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to bring forward proposals in his forthcoming White Paper on higher education to reform the system of finance for students of dance and drama; and if he will make a statement. [10815]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are sympathetic to the position of certain students of dance and drama. They note the recommendations which the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education has made in this area—in particular the need to review the supply of dancers and actors—and in the light of these will consider with interested parties what new arrangements might be put in place once the current interim bursary scheme expires. The Government's response to the committee's report will be published in the autumn.

  School Standards
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many special schools in England have been identified by Office for Standards in Education as falling or in need of special measures in each of the last three years(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of all special schools; [10352]

  (2) what percentage of schools in England excluding special schools have been identified by Ofsted as falling or in need of special measures in each of the last three years. [10353]

  Mr. Byers
  The figures requested are set out in the table.

  graduates' incomes, which are on average significantly higher than those of non-graduates. Parents in lower income families will not be expected to contribute to the costs of their children's maintenance while they are studying.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of average earnings the standard student grant and loan currently represents; and if he will make it his policy that that proportion is maintained in future years. [11493]

  Dr. Howells
  The support available through maintenance grant and loan to full-time higher education students studying away from home and outside London in academic year 1996–97 represented 18 per cent. of the value of gross national average earnings as at April 1996.

  Future levels of student support will be determined at the appropriate time, taking into account all relevant factors.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets he has set the Employment Service for 1997–98; and what plans he has for reviewing these in the future. [12160]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the 1997–98 Employment Service annual performance agreement, which sets out the standards and targets I expect the Employment Service to achieve this year. The new agreement reflects our commitment to helping people, especially those who are at a disadvantage in the labour market, find employment, and stresses that the priority for Employment Service managers this year is to take the necessary steps to prepare for the introduction of the new deal in April next year.

  The Employment Service will have a key role in implementing the new deal, and is at the heart of our efforts to help unemployed people, acting as a gateway to job vacancies and a wide range of initiatives tailored to address each individual's needs. The breadth of ES's current work is reflected in the targets I am announcing today—from placing 1.75 million unemployed people directly into jobs, to helping to ensure that JSA is paid quickly and accurately.

  I am also announcing today a review of ES's targets, including a consultation exercise with those who work with the ES, to make sure that the targets fully reflect this government's commitment to creating a fair and efficient labour market, in which all have the chance to prosper.

  Teachers' Pay
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about teachers' pay in 1997–98. [12158]

  Mr. Byers
  I am today laying before Parliament a second Pay and Conditions Order bringing the provisions of the school teachers's pay and conditions document into force from 1 September 1997. Copies of this order are being sent to local education authorities and the teachers' and employers' organisations.

  The school teachers' pay and conditions document 1997 and the Department's accompanying circular of guidance, "School Teachers' Pay and Conditions of Employment 1997", circular No. 9/97, were published on 18 July following detailed consultation with the teachers' and employers' associations and representatives of governors of voluntary and grant-maintained schools. The document sets out the statutory pay and conditions of employment for teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales.

  Class Sizes (Selby)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the(a) average and (b) maximum numbers of children in primary school classes in the parliamentary constituency of Selby. [9974]

  Mr. Byers
  The available information is shown in the tables. The information in table 2 puts into context the information on maximum class sizes in table 1.
  278
  The information derives from classes as taught during a single selected period on the census date in January. This can include some unusually large classes. Classes can include nursery as well as infant classes, classes engaged in activities such as physical educations, games, drama, music, singing, watching television or listening to a radio programme, and classes supported by one or more members of the non-teaching staff of the school. Class sizes can be affected by one or more of these factors.

  Table 1: Average and maximum class size for classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the Selby Parliamentary Constituency in January 1997 (Provisional estimates)

  Average class size

  Maximum class size

  Selby

  27.4

  38

  Table 2: Numbers of classes and pupils by class size for classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the Selby Parliamentary Constituency in January 1997 (Provisional estimates)

  Sizes of class

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  1–20

  27

  403

  21–30

  191

  5,060

  31–35

  89

  2,886

  36–40

  8

  297

  41 or more

  0

  0

  Total

  315

  8,646

  Airborne Stand-off Radar Programme
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the number of jobs which would be created within the United Kingdom through the Ministry of Defence ASTOR programme; and if he will make a statement; [10813]

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of additional jobs which would be created through use of the bombardier global express platform in the ASTOR programme. [10814]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Ministry of Defence aims to place the contract for the ASTOR programme in the next year. Two contractors, Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon E-Systems, have completed the competitive project definition studies for the ASTOR programme and invitations. Final offers for the full development and production phase are currently being prepared, following which the companies' detailed industrial participation proposals will form part of the assessment in awarding the contract.

  Therefore, at this stage of what is a sensitive competition, we cannot speculate about the number of jobs that may be created.

  Bullying
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to reduce the level of bullying in schools; and if he will make a statement; [11462]

  (2) what plans he has to meet World Health Organisation representatives to discuss the (a) causes of, (b) effects of and (c) possible solutions to reduce the incidence of bullying in schools; and if he will make a statement. [11477]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet World Health Organisation representatives to discuss bullying in schools. We are, however, concerned that all schools treat the issue of bullying seriously and take steps to combat it promptly and firmly whenever and wherever it occurs. To that end, our White Paper, "Excellence in Schools" has reminded schools that effective strategies to deal with bullying, developed and implemented by the whole school community including pupils, should form a central part of schools' behaviour policies.

  We are currently looking at what further action we might take to help schools tackle bullying and reduce its incidence. This will include taking more active steps to spread information on good practice in combating the problem.

  Encouragement of Enterprise
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to encourage enterprise among those who have been made redundant or taken early retirement. [9727]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I believe that it is important to ensure that people receive the help they need to become self-employed.

  The Department's expenditure review will set our future priorities for employment and training initiatives to complement the new deal, including the encouragement of enterprise.

  Currently training for work provides support for self-employment. This is part of a wide range of provision to help jobseekers return to work, including those made redundant or who have taken early retirement.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 443, if he will list the elected members of local authorities who have places on the boards of TECs. [6301]

  Dr. Howells
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 July 1997, c. 342]: In the list of elected members of local authorities, Mr. Alan Parker' s name was included by error as an elected member of the board of West London TEC.

  As director of education, Mr. Parker is an official of the London borough of Ealing.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes he has agreed with the Office for Standards in Education to its inspection procedures. [12163]

  Mr. Blunkett
  As foreshadowed in the White Paper "Excellence in Schools", the chief inspector has agreed to implement a programme of changes arising out of Ofsted's analysis of information collected about contracting, the process of inspection and reports, with a view to securing possible further improvements in consistency, quality and value for money. Ofsted plans to introduce in the year beginning September 1997:a quality standard for contractors which each will have to satisfy in order to gain inspection contracts. This will place considerable requirements on contractors and, where these are not met, Ofsted may cease business with them or reduce their level of activity until satisfied that they have improved. This action will be central to Ofsted's drive to improve the overall quality of inspections;
  contracting arrangements which further reduce bureaucratic procedures and paperwork. These arrangements will also reduce the period of notice to schools of inspection and mean that all schools know the exact date between one and one-and-a-half terms in advance;
  a requirement that team inspectors may inspect subjects or aspects only where they have the relevant expertise and training. Ofsted will organise approved training and accredit inspectors. They will have a register of team members and, with new legislation, the power to remove them from this register if they prove to be incompetent;
  a requirement that the names of team members and the subjects and aspects inspected in a school are included in the published reports. This will increase their accountability and enable Ofsted to identify weak ones;
  a requirement that inspectors should give oral feed-back to all teachers;
  a limit on the proportion of any one day that a teacher can be observed by an inspector. The upper limit will be 75 per cent. of the day with 50 per cent. as the norm. This should reduce the pressure on teachers in small primary schools particularly;
  a requirement that head teachers receive a profile for each teacher of the quality of teaching observed by inspectors. Each teacher will receive the data on their own teaching. This essential management of information should aid schools in identifying very good teachers, those needing further support and those whose competence is seriously in doubt;
  a requirement that the second inspection comments on progress made by the school since the previous inspection. Much of the information will come from the school and its own review systems;
  further guidance on judging standards by providing benchmark descriptors of what is expected of work judged "excellent" through to "very poor", for all subjects;
  annual data summaries for each school, including aggregate inspection data from the previous inspection. Copies of all the summaries will be sent to LEAs along with a summary of data for all the LEA's schools;
  an external person to review handling of complaints about inspection where the complainant remains unhappy with the outcome of the complaint.

  In addition, the chief inspector has agreed to review Ofsted's contracting procedures with the involvement of an external party.
  281
  I believe that this substantive set of actions will further improve inspection. The chief inspector has assured me that he will continue to review the evidence and make further improvements where these are called for.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drug Abuse
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the President of the Council what progress the Government have made since 2 May in combating drug abuse and related problems. [11835]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I have been working with a wide range of ministerial colleagues to ensure a collective and effective response to a major social problem. Specific initiatives under way across Government include funding 79 local anti-drugs projects under the £2 million drugs challenge fund in England, and related developments in Scotland and Wales; publication of an independent evaluation of drug action teams, which points the way forward for local action against drugs; reversing potential plans for reductions in frontline Customs staff; reinforcing, in the context of the single regeneration budget and elsewhere, the links between tackling drugs and regeneration; planning for the Government's legislative commitment to a drug testing and treatment order; and a cross-departmental review to assess the resources available for action against drugs.

  In addition, the Government are honouring their manifesto commitment to appoint an anti-drugs supremo to co-ordinate our battle against drugs. The special expert adviser post of UK anti-drugs co-ordinator, also known as the "Drug Czar", is being advertised tomorrow on a three year full-time fixed-term contract. We are looking for someone who can bring visible leadership and drive to the fight against drugs, working in partnership with all relevant agencies, communities and individuals. The post-holder will urgently review the overall direction of Government action, and submit proposals for a new strategy for England, while ensuring strategic coherence to the work in the rest of the UK and internationally. She or he will work directly to me as chair of the Cabinet sub-Committee on drugs misuse, and have access to the Prime Minister. We plan to make an appointment in the autumn, following an open selection process which ensures that the best possible candidates make themselves available for a vitally important job.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 July. [10316]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I had meetings with colleagues and others and later today I shall host a reception at No.10 Downing street.

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Prime Minister if a decision has been made on the composition of the Intelligence and Security Committee. [12093]
  282
  The Prime Minister
  Following consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and in accordance with section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act (1994) I have appointed the Intelligence and Security Committee as follows:

  The Right Hon. Tom King CH, MP (Chairman)

  Lady Ramsay of Cartvale

  The Right Hon. Alan Beith, MP

  Mr. Kevin Barron, MP

  Ms Yvette cooper, MP

  Mr. Barry Jones, MP

  Mr. Michael Mates, MP

  Mr. Allan Rogers, MP

  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours MP

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Groups and Committees
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if a list of the parliamentary groups and committees established in compliance with the relevant rules of the House will be placed in the Library. [11415]

  Mrs. Roe
  A new register of all-party and parliamentary groups is currently being compiled; it will be available shortly in the Library for inspection by hon. Members.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what measures are being implemented to ensure compliance with the rules for the establishment, designation and operation of parliamentary groups and committees. [11414]

  Mrs. Roe
  The Administration Committee takes the view that the internal arrangements of all-party and parliamentary groups are matters for the groups themselves, provided they are not contrary to the regulations approved by the House on 20 March 1997.

  In order to be formally registered, an all-party or parliamentary group has to give a written understanding that the group will abide by the regulations approved by the House. If any hon. Member believes that a group is in breach of these regulations, I would expect him or her to draw the matter to my attention.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Nolan Committee Records
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason files relating to the work of the Nolan committee at the Public Record Office are currently closed; and if he will release these files into the public domain. [10407]

  Mr. Hoon
  Two classes of records of the Committee on Standards in Public Life have been transferred to the Public Record Office.
  283
  The first class—Public Record Office reference JN 2—consists of copies of written evidence submitted to the Committee, and is open to inspection, although evidence which concerned individual cases, or which has been found to be potentially defamatory, has been excluded.

  As part of a pilot project to test the feasibility of archiving and making publicly available electronic records, a second class—JN 3—has been transferred to the Public Record Office in electronic form. Those of the records already in the public domain, in particular transcripts of public hearings, have been available in the Public Record Office since 9 May 1997. The other records transferred, including the minutes and papers of the committee, are currently subject to the 30-year rule under the normal provisions of the Public Records Acts. Access to closed records is in the first instance a matter for the Department concerned, in this case the committee.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Experience
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the budget for the millennium dome project, broken down by(a) category of expenditure and (b) source of revenue. [6129]

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what sums he estimates will be required from business for the millennium experience exhibition; and what assessment he has made of the effects on other millennium exhibition activities of businesses supporting the millennium experience. [6478]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: Allowing for inflation and contingencies, the overall cash budget of the new millennium experience at Greenwich and associated national programme will be £758 million. Detailed breakdown of expenditure is subject to contractual negotiation and will be published in the accounts of the New Millennium Experience Co. Ltd. at the appropriate time. Budgeted revenue for the millennium experience will come from £175 million private sector sponsorship and commercial revenue—International Management Group's contract sets a target for sponsorship of £150 million—£168 million is expected from visitor revenue including ticketing and merchandising, and £15 million from the disposal of assets. The original grant of £200 million lottery money from the Millennium Commission will be supplemented as necessary by a further grant from the commission of up to £250 million (gross); £200 million (net).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Identity Card
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from what budget the funds for the development of a European citizen's identity card for public distribution at the European Parliament were allocated. [9643]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This information is not readily available. I shall write to the hon. Member once further inquiries have been made.

  UK-US Space Project
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations between the United Kingdom and the United States preceded the launch by NASA of Cassini. [11050]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Cassini is a joint NASA—European Space Agency project due for launch in October 1997. Most discussion takes place between these agencies. The UK, within ESA, has been fully involved in preparations for these discussions.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Gibraltar. [10810]

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit Gibraltar. [11478]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans at present to visit Gibraltar. I am looking forward to my visit in September.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Spanish Government seeking the removal of the restrictions on military and civilian aircraft flying into Gibraltar. [10811]

  Mr. Henderson
  We have already made representations to the Spanish Government about the removal of restrictions on military and civil aircraft and we will continue to do so.

  British Citizens Working Overseas
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the British embassy and consulate towards British citizens and their families working abroad on permanent or semi-permanent assignments; what priority(a) these individuals and (b) British tourists travelling abroad receive; and if he will make a statement. [11096]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department's consular services offer world-wide protection 24 hours a day seven days a week to all British nationals abroad. The level of help provided and the priority attached to it is judged on a case by case basis depending on the needs of the individual.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy on the protection and support of British citizens working overseas for foreign-based companies. [11207]

  Mr. Lloyd
  The protection of British nationals abroad is a front-line responsibility for this Department. Consular staff provide protection 24 hours a day, seven days a week worldwide to all British nationals who need it, irrespective of whether they are working overseas or travelling as tourists.

  Korean Peninsula
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement
  285
  regarding the four-party talks on peace in the Korean peninsula scheduled to begin in Geneva on 5 August. [11296]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We welcome the plans for a preparatory four-party meeting in Geneva and hope it will quickly lead to full four-party talks about peace in the peninsula.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for the latest year for which the information is available the individuals from the Republic of Korea who have had visits to the United Kingdom sponsored by his Department stating in each case whether the airfare or costs in the United Kingdom were met from public funds. [11361]

  Mr. Lloyd
  The following Korean visitors were sponsored by this Department during the financial year 1996–97.

  Air fare and costs in UK met from public funds:

  Dr. Shin Jeong-Shik, President, Korea Economics Institute.

  Mr. Heon-Seok Lee, Assistant Minister for Construction Policy.

  Mr. Kim Keun, Director, International Affairs the Hankyoreh Shinmun.

  Costs in UK met from public funds:

  Mr. Kim Young-Soo, Foreign Editor, Korean Broadcasting System.

  Professor Shin Hee-Suk, Director General, Institute of Foreign Affairs.

  Professor Yong-Tae Kang, President, Korea Technology Society of Water and Waste.

  Mrs. Jeon Jae-Hee, Mayoress of Kwangmyung City.

  Mr. Park Hae-Hyun, Cultural Reporter, the Chosun Ilbo.

  Mr. Kim Kang-Chung, Managing Director and Chief Editor, Munwha Broadcasting Corporation.

  Mr. Kim Byuk-Soo, Editorial Director, Seoul Broadcasting System.

  Some incidental costs in UK met from public funds:

  Mr. Lee Soo-Mok, City Administration Manager, Kwangmyung City.

  Mr. Park Tae-Soo, Information Officer, Kwangmyung City.

  Dr. Kang Moon-Soo, Senior Fellow, Korea Development Institute.

  Dr. Lim Suhng Bin, Senior Research Fellow, Korea Research Institute for Local Administration.

  Mr. Geum Chang-Ho, Researcher, Korea Research Institute for Local Administration.

  Mr. O. Eui-Dong, Director, Planning Bureau, Pusan City.

  Mr. Park Sung-II, Assistant Director, Planning Bureau, Taegu City.

  Mr. Lee Eung-Gil, Assistant Director, Planning Bureau, Inchon City.

  Mr. Lee Kyu-Shik, Special Advisor, Inchon City Council.

  Mr. No Jae-Sook, Director, Planning Bureau, Kwangjoo City.

  Mr. Kim Chung, Special Advisor, Kwangjoo City Council.

  Mr. Lee Kee-Ha, Director, Planning Bureau, Daejun City.

  Mr. Kim In-Kyu, Director, Planning Bureau, Kyonggi Province.

  Mr. Park Won-II, Special Advisor, Kyonggi Provincial Council.

  Mr. Hong Won-Pyo, Assistant Director, Planning Bureau, Kangwon Province.

  Mr. Kim Nam-II, Director, Local Bureau, Kyungsangbuk Province.

  286

  Mr. Suh Jae-Kyu, Director, Planning Bureau, Kyungsangbuk Province.

  Mr. Chun Soo-Sik, Director-General, Planning Bureau, Kyungsangnam Province.

  Mr. Kim Soon-Ik, Special Advisor, Cheju Provincial Council.

  Mr. Huh Dai-Choon, Special Advisor, Cheju Provincial Council.

  Dr. Kwang-Ho Meng, Professor of Preventative Medicine, Catholic University Medical School.

  Dr. Euichul Shin, Instructor, Catholic University Medical School.

  Dr. Hong-Jun Cho, Assistant Professor, Woolsan University Medical School.

  Dr. Yong-Jeon Shin, Instructor, Hanyang University Medical School.

  Dr. Kidong Park, Medical Officer, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.

  Ms Ji-Hoon Yang, Director, Division of Public Health, Cheonam Province.

  Ms Bon-Soon Koo, Assistant Director, Division of Public Health, Kyungsangbuk Province.

  Mr. Man-Soo Kim, Director, Division of Public Health, Pusan City.

  Mr. Cheul-Yong Jin, Division of Medicine and Pharmacy, Seoul City.

  Dr. Hong-Jun Cho, Assistant Professor, Medical College, University of Ulsan.

  Dr. Chay Pyung-Gil, Professor of Public Administration Yonsei University and member of Presidential Policy Planning Commission.

  Dr. Lee Chong-Su, Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Yonsei University.

  Representative Kim Ki-Soo, Representative in Kangwon Province, New Korea Party.

  Mrs. Lee Sang-Ho, Ministry of Home Affairs.

  Professor Park Chong-Kee, Professor of Economics, Inha University.

  Mr. Son Sang-Ik, Researcher, Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade.

  Professor Keun-Hyun Lee, Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology.

  Dr. Lee Ki-Hwan, Lecturer, Korean Maritime University.

  Dr. Kim Si-Soo, Associate Professor, Pukyong University.

  Dr. Chung-Sook Moon, Professor, Department of Consumer Economics, Sookmyung Women's University.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 July,Official Report, column 604, on what day he wrote to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe; and what response he has received. [11146]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We wrote on 18 July. The OSCE replied on 28 July that registration applications could not be lodged during the appeals period. Polling day arrangements for the housebound remained under consideration. But the OSCE lacked the resources required to enable the housebound to vote at home under international supervision.

  Regional or Minority Languages Charter
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government plan to sign the EU charter for regional or minority languages. [11294]
  287
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 28 July,Official Report, columns 30–31.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the effect on services of the 1996 review of the BBC World Service. [11104]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The joint FCO-BBC World Service working group will reconvene in the autumn to determine whether the measures it agreed last year to ensure that the continued protection of World Service interests and the maintenance of its special character, style and ethos are functioning satisfactorily. Meanwhile we are monitoring the situation closely.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Indonesia. [11293]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We look forward to pursuing a substantive and broad-based relationship with Indonesia, which reflects the breadth of our bilateral, regional and global interests, and addresses issues of mutual concern, including human rights.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to refuse all export licences for arms sales to Indonesia. [11312]

  Mr. Lloyd
  We have no plans to introduce a general arms embargo on Indonesia.

  China
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the People's Republic of China. [11295]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  When they met in Hong Kong, the Chinese Foreign Minister, Qian Qichen, invited my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to visit China. My right hon. Friend accepted the invitation and hopes to visit soon.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to publish the first of the reports to Parliament on Hong Kong and the implementation of the Joint Declaration. [11979]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The first such report, covering the period January to June 1997, was published today and a copy has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The report includes a foreword written by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  I commend the report to the House.

  Overseas Posts (Business Men)
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about increasing the number of business men on short-term attachments at posts overseas. [11980]
  288
  Mr. Robin Cook
  We made a commitment in our business manifesto to improve the focus of our efforts to back British business selling abroad, to enhance the co-ordination of government trade and investment promotion, and to promote business secondments with this Department.

  I am pleased to announce that we have secured a commitment from a number of leading companies to loan members of their staff to this Department to work on specific promotions or projects overseas for periods of a few months. These people will provide valuable expertise to support and promote the activities of the commercial sections of our overseas posts. Each attachment will have a specific focus, such as privatisation projects, inward investment promotion, management of commercial promotions, marketing of UK financial services, or identifying market opportunities in specific sectors.

  I welcome the whole-hearted support for this initiative of the Confederation of British Industry. It has encouraged a number of members to participate from the outset, including British Airways, BOC, ICL, Wimpey, British Aerospace, BT, British Steel, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., BUPA, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and Glaxo Wellcome. Other companies have expressed a strong interest and I am confident that more attachments will be arranged in the coming months.

  This is a commitment to a rolling programme of attachments to strengthen our partnership with business. In the longer term, we hope that companies will be able to second suitable staff to serve as part of the established commercial teams in overseas posts, and in return provide opportunities for this Department's staff to hone their business skills by hosting secondments.

  European Union
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the definition of discrimination due to marital status in the burden of proof directive; and if he will make a statement; [11487]

  (2) to which categories of individuals article 3 of the burden of proof directive is directed; and what cost analysis of the directive has been undertaken; [11485]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the Euro-Mediterranean free trade area proposed in the presidency conclusions at Amsterdam; [11481]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the effect of Agenda 2000 on the future allocation of structural funds to the United Kingdom; [11489]

  (5) what reforms of the directorates-general will follow the declaration of the Commission in chapter 16 of the Amsterdam treaty; what effect this will have on (a) foreign affairs representations and (b) the British Commissioners; and if he will make a statement; [11431]

  (6) if the Schengen secretariat and proposed acquis will be subject to the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality as outlined in the Amsterdam treaty; [11437]

  (7) if he will make a statement on the progressive development of a common defence policy, as expressed in article J.7 of the treaty of Amsterdam; [11435]
  289
  (8) what special representatives he expects to be created under the provisions of the treaty of Amsterdam; [11442]

  (9) in what circumstances the (a) qualified majority voting and (b) unanimity voting procedure would apply to measures under article 209a of the treaty of Amsterdam; and if he will make a statement; [11449]

  (10) what is the maximum length of time a decision may be deferred on the legality of unilateral action undertaken under article 100a of the treaty of Amsterdam; [11453]

  (11) if he will make a statement on the future of the European Coal and Steel Community reserves after 2002; [11483]

  (12) for what reasons the additional fields of competence to the (a) Economic and Social Committee and (b) Committee of the Regions are granted by the treaty of Amsterdam; [11417]

  (13) if he will make a statement on the declaration on implementing powers in chapter 18 of the treaty of Amsterdam; [11419]

  (14) if he will make a statement on the change to the legal base of the Conference of European Affairs Committees, as established in chapter 19 of the Amsterdam treaty; [11421]

  (15) if he will make a statement on the application of the deadlines established in article 189b of the treaty of Amsterdam; [11425]

  (16) if he will make a statement on the procedural and secretarial implications of article 151 of the Amsterdam treaty; [11427]

  (17) what effect article 158(2) of the Amsterdam treaty will have on the selection procedures for (a) the President of the Commission and (b) other Commissioners; and if he will make a statement; [11429]

  (18) what measures will be undertaken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure the transposition of agreed legislation into national law; and what measures he plans to take in respect of the practice of gold-plating European legislation; [11479]

  (19) what will be the consequences of article L of chapter 17 of the treaty of Amsterdam for European Court of Justice monitoring of employment conditions within the European Community institutions; what estimate he has made of their expenditure implications; and if he will make a statement; [11433]

  (20) what scope for preferential use of codes of practice and voluntary conduct rather than legislation is (a) permitted and (b) expected as a consequence of chapter 9 of the treaty of Amsterdam; [11438]

  (21) what will be the role of the Western European Union, under the treaty of Amsterdam, in elaborating EU decisions that have defence implications; [11460]

  (22) what is the definition of participation in democratic transition processes used in the inter-institutional agreement in chapter 12 of the treaty of Amsterdam; [11444]
  290
  (23) if he will make a statement on the implications of paragraph 4 of article 129 of the Amsterdam treaty for domestic policy; [11447]

  (24) what measures have been discussed at European Union level on extending the working time directive; what categories of workers are concerned; when the legislation will be implemented; and if he will make a statement; [11451]

  (25) what effect the burden of proof directive will have on the basis of the common law concept of presumed innocence; and if he will make a statement; [11486]

  (26) if he will make a statement on proposals to include arms export controls in the common foreign and security policy of the European Union; [11482]

  (27) who the British representatives will be on the co-ordinating committee under article K. 8 of the Amsterdam treaty; [11405]

  (28) if (a) committees of inquiry at the European Parliament and (b) petitions to Members of the European Parliament by aggrieved citizenry will be permitted in the area of title VI material under article K.13 of the Amsterdam treaty; [11406]

  (29) what provisions of the Schengen acquis he plans to incorporate into British law in accordance with the protocol incorporating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union in the Amsterdam treaty; what legislation will be required to implement this; and if he will make a statement; [11407]

  (30) if he will supply a list of errata for the Amsterdam treaty text as deposited in the House; [11408]

  (31) what estimate he has made of the cost of British participation at the Schengen round table established at Amsterdam; [11409]

  (32) what is the significance of the reordering of the text in the amended article 2 of the treaty on European Communities according to the new Amsterdam treaty version; [11412]

  (33) if Her Majesty's Government will include British representatives from (a) the Federation of Small Businesses, (b) the Institute of Directors and (c) other business groups and unrepresented trades unions as social partners in respect of the structural funds; and if he will make a statement; [11413]

  (34) what effect article 163 of the Amsterdam treaty will have on the role of the President of the European commission; [11430]

  (35) in which areas the Amsterdam treaty extends the competence of the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement; [11432]

  (36) to what the reference to article 3b(2) in the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality refers; [11434]

  (37) if he will make a statement on the effect of the Amsterdam treaty on (a) OCCAR and (b) its Western European Union-based arms procurement equivalent; [11440]
  291
  (38) in what manner the high representative, as established at the treaty of Amsterdam, will be accountable to (i) the Council of Ministers, (ii) the European Parliament, (iii) national parliaments and (iv) other European Union institutions; [11443]

  (39) what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing the objectives listed in article 129 of the Amsterdam treaty; [11446]

  (40) which parts of the United Kingdom are classified as an island region under chapter 8 of the treaty of Amsterdam; [11450]

  (41) if a directive that follows a Commission opinion on the legality of a unilateral ban imposed under article 100a of the treaty of Amsterdam would be agreed under qualified majority voting; [11454]

  (42) if he will make a statement on the declaration on genetic engineering appended to the presidency conclusions at Amsterdam; [11484]

  (43) what estimate he has made of the costs of implementing the institutional reforms of the treaty of Amsterdam connected with (a) the Committee of the Regions and (b) the Economic and Social Committee; [11418]

  (44) what is his policy in respect of the geographic spread of the seats of the institutions of the European Union; and if he will make a statement; [11420]

  (45) if he will make a statement on the implications of section V of the Amsterdam treaty for attempts by the United Kingdom to negotiate the repatriation of powers from the European Union; [11422]

  (46) what will be the United Kingdom's proportion of total Members of the European Parliament under the treaty of Amsterdam at the entry of those countries for whom entrance to the EU is recommended in Agenda 2000; and if he will make a statement; [11426]

  (47) how unclassified documents are to be released to the public in accordance with article 151 of the Amsterdam treaty; what will be the manner of storage of such documents that are withheld; when the latter documents will be released into the public domain; and which non-governmental and non-Commission bodies will have access to them; [11428]

  (48) if he will list the circumstances in which a member state can ban products on non-trade grounds under article 100a of the treaty of Amsterdam; [11452]

  (49) which social chapter legislation will be acquis by the time the United Kingdom is a voting member on the social chapter; [11480]

  (50) what is the current legal basis on which European Union statistics are produced; [11436]
  292
  (51) what would be the powers of the European ombudsman in respect of the confidentiality of documents under article 191a of the Amsterdam treaty; [11439]

  (52) when the common foreign and security policy will next be reviewed; [11441]

  (53) what assessment he has made of the effect of the early warning unit declaration in the Amsterdam treaty on (i) the confidentiality of state secrets and (ii) the intelligence partnership between the United Kingdom and the United States; and if he will make a statement; [11445]

  (54) if he will make a statement on the status of Welsh under the treaty of Amsterdam; [11448]

  (55) if he will make a statement on the implications of article 6a of the Amsterdam treaty for United Kingdom law in respect of discrimination in the areas covered by the article; [11400]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which his Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all subcontractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10740]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for the following functions relating to payroll:collating and processing payments including basic pay, overtime, National Insurance contributions, tax and other deductions;
  arrangements for making payments.

  Chessington Computer Centre is contracted to carry out these functions on our behalf and marks all payments and deductions through the SPIRE—standard payroll input and retrieval—payroll management system. The combined costs of the pay and pay assessment contract at present is £67.96 per payee per annum.

  Sport (Redbridge)
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which elements of the national strategy for sport will be implemented in the London borough of Redbridge; and what plans he has to visit the area. [9514]

  Mr. Banks
  The strategy will be implemented throughout the country, including the London borough of Redbridge, and I hope to have an early opportunity to visit the area to see what is already going on and what opportunities there are for implementing the strategy.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and
  293
  capital work for (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [11388]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's expenditure on computer-related work in 1995–96 was £1,126,000 current and £602,000 capital. In 1996–97, current expenditure was £1,138,000 and capital was £837,000. The budget for 1997–98 is for current expenditure of £1,261,000 and capital expenditure of £549,000. The information systems budget for future years is under review as part of the Department's current spending review process.

  Sport
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the Government spent on sport in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1996–97 in current prices. [10824]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: In 1978–79, central Government expenditure on sport to the Great Britain Sports Council was £15.2 million. In 1996–97, total central Government expenditure on sport was £51.61 million. Of this, £46.55 million was allocated to the Great Britain Sports Council and its successors from 1 January 1997, the UK and English Sports Councils.

  Also in 1996–97, £264.78 million was awarded by the English Sports Council to 1,005 sports-related projects from the lottery sports fund.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much financial support(a) in grants, (b) as tax allowances and (c) as other benefits, at current prices, the Government gave to the United Kingdom film industry in each year since 1979; [10827]

  (2) what was the level of Government-supported investment, at current prices, in the United Kingdom film industry in each year since 1979. [10828]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The level of Government support for film in the UK for the years 1979–86 is not available except at disproportionate cost. For the years 1987 onwards, the support was as follows:

  Direct central Government spend on the arts in 1978–79 and 1996–97

  £ million

  Arts organisation

  Grant-in-aid 1978–79

  Grant-in-aid (1996–97 prices)

  Arts organisation

  Grant-in-aid 1996–97

  Grant-in-aid (1996–97 prices)

  Arts Council of Great Britain

  51.8

  159.3

  Arts Council1

  227.4

  227.4

  Crafts Council

  0.8

  2.5

  Crafts Council

  3.25

  3.25

  British Film Institute

  3.5

  10.8

  British Film Institute

  16.5

  16.5

  National Heritage Arts Sponsorship Scheme2

  5.05

  5.05

  Total

  56.1

  172.5

  Total

  252.2

  252.2

  1 Cumulative figure for the Arts Councils of England, Scotland and Wales as ACGB ceased to exist from 31 March 1994.

  2 National heritage arts sponsorship scheme introduced on 1 October 1984.

  294

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  National Lottery

  1987–88

  19.9

  —

  1988–89

  21.1

  —

  1989–90

  20.6

  —

  1990–91

  20.4

  —

  1991–92

  22.6

  —

  1992–93

  24.37

  —

  1993–94

  26.04

  —

  1994–95

  27.6

  —

  1995–96

  27.13

  20.1

  1996–97

  123.6

  62.69

  1997–98

  223.5

  37.89

  Notes:

  1 Estimated outturn.

  2 Provision.

  3 To date.

  Source:

  BFI/Screen Finance/Screen Digest.

  The level of Government support given as tax allowances and as other benefits is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Arts Expenditure
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much, in current prices, the Government spent on the arts in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1996–97. [10826]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Central Government funding of the arts in Great Britain in 1978–79, provided through the Arts Council of Great Britain, the Crafts Council and the British Film Institute, amounted to £55.1 million. This is equivalent to £172.6 million in current prices, based on the latest assumptions of the gross domestic product deflators.

  In 1996–97, central Government funding of the arts in Great Britain, provided through the Arts Council of England, of Scotland and of Wales; the Crafts Council; the British Film Institute and the national heritage arts sponsorship scheme, amounted to £252.3 million. Full details are given in the following table.

  There are also other sources of arts funding generated through Government expenditure: either directly, such as through local authorities and the BBC or indirectly, such as through European spending programmes. However, complexities of definition and insufficient data make it difficult to provide reliable funding figures.

  Arts Councils
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what level of Government funding, in the current prices, was provided for the Arts Councils in each year since 1978–79. [10830]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Details of central Government funding of the Arts Councils serving England, Scotland and Wales in each year since 1978–79, and at current prices based on the latest assumptions of the gross domestic product deflators, are given in the following table.

  Arts Council Funding 1978–97 to 1996–97

  £ Million

  Year

  ACGB Grant-in-aid

  ACGB Grant-in-aid (1996–97 prices)

  1978–79

  51.8

  159.3

  1979–80

  63.1

  166.3

  1980–81

  71.0

  158.1

  1981–82

  80.5

  163.5

  1982–83

  91.3

  173.1

  1983–84

  96.8

  175.4

  1984–85

  101.9

  175.8

  1985–86

  106.5

  174.2

  1986–871

  135.6

  215.2

  1987–88

  139.3

  209.9

  1988–89

  152.4

  215.3

  1989–90

  155.5

  205.3

  1990–91

  175.8

  214.9

  1991–92

  194.2

  223.2

  1992–93

  221.2

  244.0

  1993–94

  225.6

  241.8

  1994–952

  223.3

  235.8

  1995–96

  229.8

  236.1

  1996–97

  227.4

  227.4

  1 The increase in 1986–87 was mainly an injection of funding in compensation for the loss of GLC and metropolitan authority spending.

  2 The Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) ceased to exist on 31 March 1994. In order to give equivalent figures for 1994–95 and after, the table includes DCMS grant in aid to the Arts Council of England and the grant in aid to the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils from their sponsoring departments.

SCOTLAND

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people to be covered by the welfare-to-work programme are estimated to require remedial literacy and numeracy assistance. [7929]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: This information is not available. Under the new deal initiative, all young people aged between 18 and 24 and unemployed for six months or more will be given guidance interviews and sufficient provision of remedial assistance will be made available to those identified as having literacy and numeracy needs.

  Holyroodhouse Palace
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are(a) permanently employed and (b) employed on a seasonal and a
  296
  temporary basis at Holyroodhouse palace; what is (i) the annual wages bill, (ii) the range of salaries and (iii) the average salary; and if he will make a statement. [9148]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: There are 22 permanent staff employed by the royal household and funded by Historic Scotland at the palace of Holyroodhouse and six paid for out of the Queen's Civil List.

  For these staff:

  (i) the total wages bill (including national insurance and pension costs) for the year 1996–97 was £513,130;

  (ii) the current range of full-time salaries—excluding national insurance and pension costs—is £8,624 to £33,686;

  (iii) the current average full-time salary—excluding national insurance and pension costs—is £13,009.

  In addition, Royal Collection Enterprises Ltd.—a trading subsidiary of the Royal Collection Trust—employs 13 permanent staff in connection with the opening of the palace to the public and up to 13 temporary posts are created during the busy summer months.

  Historic Scotland employ a number of industrial staff who work on various properties in the Edinburgh area, including the palace of Holyroodhouse. Approximate assessments of the costs associated with their palace duties show that:

  (i) the relevant proportion of the total wages bill—including national insurance and pension costs—for the year 1996–97 was £333,643;

  (ii) the current range of full-time salaries—excluding national insurance and pension costs—is: £8,500 to £16,182;

  (iii) the current average full-time salary—excluding national insurance and pension costs—is £11,075.

  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many days in each of the past 10 years there have been persons in residence in Holyroodhouse palace; if he will say who was resident; and if he will make a statement. [9150]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: The palace of Holyroodhouse has been occupied by members of the royal family and by the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for the following number of days in each year since 1988:

  Year

  Number of days occupied

  1988

  38

  1989

  28

  1990

  28

  1991

  28

  1992

  23

  1993

  32

  1994

  28

  1995

  29

  1996

  26

  1997

  134

  1 Includes visits by members of the royal family planned for the remainder of 1997. In addition, staff of the royal household have been in residence from time to time in connection with their duties.

  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the annual cost of the maintenance at Holyroodhouse palace in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [9149]
  297
  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: The subject of the question relates to operational matters undertaken by Historic Scotland. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Graeme Munro, to arrange for a reply to be sent.

  Letter from Graeme Munro to Mr. Norman Godman, dated 30 July 1997:
  In the absence of Graeme Munro, Historic Scotland's Chief Executive, on annual leave I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the maintenance costs of the Palace of Holyroodhouse.
  The Secretary of State funds the cost of maintaining the fixed fabric of Holyroodhouse (as distinct from furniture, tapestries, paintings, etc.), together with security costs, the costs of utilities such as electricity, gas and telephones, and limited capital purchases such as equipment and office furniture. The Royal Household funds the costs of administering the Palace for Royal use, and the Royal Collection Trust undertakes the arrangements for public visiting.
  The annual costs falling to the Secretary of State under these headings since 1990–91 are as follows:

  Programme expenditure

  Historic Scotland employee costs

  Total £

  1990–91

  860,833

  288,636

  1,149,469

  1991–92

  723,000

  334,346

  1,057,346

  1992–93

  696,600

  338,530

  1,035,130

  1993–94

  693,215

  337,852

  1,031,067

  1994–95

  897,700

  345,124

  1,242,824

  1995–96

  805,400

  273,909

  1,079,309

  1996–97

  743,700

  288,126

  1,031,826

  1997–98 (estimate)

  734,700

  275,673

  1,010,373

  These figures include all Historic Scotland's expenditure directly related to the Palace apart from central professional and administration costs.The provision of figures for the years preceding 1990–91 (prior to the formation of the Agency), or the separation of maintenance from other costs such as security and utility charges, could not be undertaken without disproportionate effort and cost.I hope that this information is helpful.
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions Holyroodhouse palace has been the setting for public events in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [9151]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: Each year, approximately 14,000 people are invited to some 20 functions given at the palace by the Queen and by the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on Her Majesty's behalf, including garden parties, dinners, receptions and investitures. The place is also used on occasions by other members of the royal family. In addition, the palace was used in December 1992 for the meeting of the European Council under the UK's presidency; in 1994 for a sate visit by the King of Norway; and during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh during October 1997, the Queen will receive Heads of State and other representatives of Commonwealth countries at the palace and will give a dinner and reception for those attending the conference.

  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tourists have visited Hollyroodhouse palace in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [9164]
  298
  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: The numbr of visitors to the palace of Holyroodhouse in each of the last 10 years was as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Number of visitors

  1988

  316,593

  1989

  321,629

  1990

  297,730

  1991

  314,694

  1992

  278,346

  1993

  276,866

  1994

  299,722

  1995

  253,714

  1996

  260,294

  1997

  283,877

  The palace was open on most days of each year, apart from during the visits of HM the Queen and the Lord High Commissioner and a few days of preparation before and after their visits.

  Learning Support Teachers
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many learning support teachers expressed as a full-time equivalent have been provided by each education authority in the current year; and how many were provided over the previous four years by them or their predecessor authority. [9613]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested is not held centrally on a comparable basis for each education authority in Scotland at the present time. Information is collected annually as part of the school census about the provision of learning support. An analysis of this data shows that there has been a substantial variation recently from year to year and among education authorities. We strongly suspect that some of this variation is due to differences in the patterns of provision and interpretation of definitions of learning support, rather than differences in the total amount of learning support being provided in each authority. The methods used to collect this information are currently being improved. My Department will be considering with colleagues in education authorities, schools and HM inspectorate how to resolve this issue and collect and publish the information on a more comparable basis.

  Pharmacists (Drug Offences)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward proposals to change the law to prevent a pharmacist, who has been disbarred following a professional hearing for offences involving drugs, from continuing his business. [9620]

  Mr. Galbraith
  I do not propose to change the existing legislation controlling the business of a registered retail pharmacy.

  Persons who have been removed from the register of pharmaceutical chemists are not entitled to use the restricted title of "pharmacist" and cannot legally own a pharmacy business in their own name. They may retain an interest in the business by transferring ownership to a partnership or body corporate, but in either case the pharmacy must operate under the personal control of a registered pharmacist.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which his Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10735]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department retains control of the majority of the functions relating to payroll for staff in the Scottish Office and related agencies. The departmental pay section is responsible for arrangements for collating and inputting of all data for staff salaries by means of the SPIRE—standard payroll input and retrieval—management system. The departmental pay section also directly manages the distribution of payslips and control prints, payover of moneys to third parties in respect of tax, national insurance and voluntary deductions and all accounting and reconciliation work. Processing, calculation and payment of salaries via the banks automatic clearing system is undertaken for the Department by Chessington Computer Services Ltd.

  In 1996–97 the costs for these arrangements were £553,473 in respect of services provided by Chessington Computer Services Ltd. and £583,206 in respect of costs for staff employed in the departmental pay section.

  Internet
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure the Scottish Office's web site on the Internet has adequate links to and from the web site of the Central Office of Information; and if he will make a statement. [11004]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department's web site on the Internet and that of the Central Office of Information are available on the CCTA Government information service site, which gives access to all Government Departments' web sites. My Department's site will remain accessible through this service. It is planned to update the web site shortly, and links will be set up to the web sites of all other Government Departments, including the Central Office of Information. Other Departments will be invited to create reciprocal links.

  EU Languages Charter
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations he has made to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office concerning the ratification by the United Kingdom of the Council of Europe's charter for regional and minority languages; [10376]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the ratification by the United Kingdom of the Council of Europe's charter for regional and minority languages on the (a) Gaelic and (b) Scots languages in Scotland. [10377]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The Government are examining what the implications of signing and ratifying the charter would be.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time civil servants, on each payband, his Department currently employs. [11068]

  Mr. Dewar
  Pay and grading reviews are currently under way in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies other than the Scottish Prison Service, but have not been completed. Staffing figures, expressed as headcounts, 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

  Part-time

  Senior Civil Service

  145

  10

  Grade 6

  150

  2

  Grade 7

  383

  21

  Senior Executive Officer

  342

  13

  Higher Executive Officer

  707

  42

  Executive Officer

  852

  42

  Administrative Officer

  924

  124

  Administrative Assistant

  938

  108

  Industrial

  305

  —

  Total

  4,746

  362

  As a pay and grading review has taken place in the Scottish Prison Service, it is possible to provide a breakdown by pay band. The headcount information is set out in the table.

  The Scottish Prison Service at 1 April 1997

  Band

  Pay range

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Senior Civil Service

  6

  —

  I

  £33,700-£52,100

  6

  —

  H

  £28,100-£43,400

  30

  —

  G

  £23,500-£35,750

  58

  —

  F

  £17,900-£30,650

  182

  114

  E

  £14,300-£25,550

  563

  —

  D

  £11,450-£21,450

  2,257

  4

  C

  £9,300-£ 16,350

  1,182

  12

  B

  £7,350-£11,450

  190

  10

  A

  £6,150-£9,600

  38

  2

  Total

  4,512

  142

  Forestry
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many forest shops and catering outlets there were, and what their net income was, in 1996–97 in each of the current Forest Enterprise regions; [10722]

  (2) what targets have been set for the number of plans for the management of scheduled ancient monuments agreed with heritage agencies in each of the current Forest Enterprise regions in relation to the objective of conserving the cultural heritage in Forestry Commission forests specified in paragraph 11.9 of the Forest Enterprise corporate plan 1997 to 2000; [10724]

  (3) how many countryside agencies and user groups will be consulted in each current Forest Enterprise region in connection with the review of recreation strategies and resource allocation mentioned in paragraph 9.24 of the

  301
  Forest Enterprise corporate plan 1997 to 2000; and what is the current resource allocation in each of those regions; [10721]

  (4) how many plans for sites of special scientific interest will have to be (a) prepared, (b) maintained and (c) monitored for compliance in each of the current Forest Enterprise regions in order to achieve comprehensive implementation of the management plans referred to in paragraph 10.8 of the Forest Enterprise corporate plan 1997 to 2000; [10723]

  (5) how many visits to Forestry Commission forests and woods were made during 1996–97 by educational institutions in each of the current Forest Enterprise regions; [10711]

  (6) how many "What's On" events, as described in paragraph 12.20 of the Forest Enterprise corporate plan 1997 to 2000, were staged in 1996–97; and how many people attended those events, in each of the current Forest Enterprise regions; [10712]

  (7) with which (a) local authorities, (b) statutory bodies and (c) non-governmental organisations is contact maintained for the purpose of liaison over forest design plans and other management plans, as described in chapter 12 of the Forest Enterprise corporate plan 1997 to 2000, in each of the current Forest Enterprise regions; [10713]

  (8) what is the total combined mileage by the shortest practical road route from each Forest Enterprise forest district to that district's Forest Enterprise regional office under (a) the current five-region structure and (b) the proposed four-region structure; [10714]

  (9) how many full-time equivalent jobs will be lost in Forest Enterprise regional offices in (a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England under the Forest Enterprise proposal for reducing the number of regional offices; [10715]

  (10) what assessment he has made of the effect on the Forest Enterprise standards of service of its proposal to reduce the number of its regional offices; how compliance to these standards has been measured in the past; and how it is planned to be measured in future; [10716]

  (11) how many timber customers, as defined in paragraph 7.9 of the Forest Enterprise corporate plan 1997 to 2000, there were during 1996–97 in each of the current Forest Enterprise regions; [10717]

  (12) in each of the current Forest Enterprise regions, how many (a) woods are leased to the Forestry Commission, (b) landlords own land leased to the commission and (c) landlords reserve powers over sporting rights on land leased to the commission. [10718]

  (13) with how many sports representative bodies of the kinds referred to in paragraph 9.15 of the Forest Enterprise corporate plan 1997 to 2000 contacts are maintained; and how many permits or licences were issued for specialist sports and activities during 1996–97, in each of the current Forest Enterprise regions; [10719]

  (14) how Forest Enterprise estimates the number of visits made by members of the public to Forestry Commission woods and forests for the purpose of measuring its performance in the terms described in paragraph 9.23 of the Forest Enterprise corporate plan
  302
  1997 to 2000; and how many such visits were made to Forestry Commission woods and forests in 1996–97 in each current Forest Enterprise region. [10720]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Dr. Bob McIntosh, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 30 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to the various Questions you raised about the Forestry Commission.
  I will answer each one by referring to the 5 digit reference which appears against each Question on the Order paper.

  PQ No. 10711
  Data on visits by educational institutions for 1996/97 is not held centrally or regionally. In accordance with the 1997–2000 Corporate Plan, para 12.20, educational visits will be a measure of Forest Enterprise performance in Promoting Public Understanding and Participation. The data will therefore be collated during 1997/98.

  PQ No. 10712
  Data on What's On Events for 1996/97 is not held centrally or regionally. In accordance with the 1997–2000 Corporate Plan, para 12.20, attendance at What's On Forest Events will be a measure of Forest Enterprise performance in Promoting Public Understanding and Participation. Data will therefore be collected during 1997/98.

  PQ No. 10713
  Forest Enterprise produces a wide variety of plans covering a range of topics at forest, regional and national levels. It would not be practicable to assemble a comprehensive list of all the organisations and individuals with whom we liaise in planning the management of Forestry Commission forests.
  However I can give you a list of key contacts as follows:-

  Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee to the Forestry Commissioners including the sub-committees on timber supply and the environment;

  Wildlife and Countryside Link forum of the national conservation and recreation NGOs;

  Biodiversity Challenge Groups of NGOs (RSPB, WWF, Friends of the Earth, Butterfly Conservation and Plant Life);

  Representative groups of the home grown timber processing industry;

  All local planning authorities;

  Countryside Agencies—SNH, EN, CCW, CC;

  Heritage Agencies—HS, EH, CADW;

  Enterprise Companies;

  Tourist Boards.

  Local community groups are involved through local Forest District Environmental Panels. Ways of upgrading local community involvement are currently being developed in line with our Action Plan to improve performance in para 12.22 of the 1997–2000 Corporate Plan.

  PQ No. 10714
  I set out the combined mileage for Regional offices to Forest District offices on the basis of the 31 Forest Districts planned to be in operation after amalgamation from 1.4.98.

  align="center">Current 5 Region Structure

  Combined mileage

  Average mileage

  North Scotland (Inverness)

  652

  72

  South Scotland (Dumfries)

  363

  61

  Wales (Aberystwyth)

  242

  48

  North & East England (York)

  641

  107

  South & West England (Bristol)

  423

  85

  303

  align="center">(b) 4 Region Structure with Bristol as the sole office for England No change in Scotland and Wales

  Combined mileage

  Average mileage

  England (Bristol)

  1,762

  160

  PQ No. 10715
  The number of full time equivalent jobs that will be lost in Forest Enterprise Regional offices as a result of the reduction in Regional offices, will be:

  Proposed reduction

  Scotland (no reduction in offices)

  Nil

  Wales (no reduction in offices)

  Nil

  England

  140.0

  1 The reduction of 40 posts in England will be partly as a result of closure but mostly as a result of delegation of work to Forest Districts and centralization of work to Head Office.

  PQ No. 10716
  The proposal to reduce the number of Regional offices from 5 to 4 will have no effect upon Forest Enterprise's ability to deliver the Standards of Service set out in the 1997–2000 Corporate Plan. Our services are delivered primarily through front-line staff in Forest Districts dealing directly with visitors, customers and suppliers.
  Compliance with the Forest Enterprise standards of service is assessed through the Agency performance measure "Percentage Compliance with the Citizen's Charter Standards Statement". In 1996/97 systems were introduced and staff trained in order to operate this measure from 1997/98.
  The measure comprises three parts:

  Percentage of day visitors using forest recreation facilities who consider the service to be good or very good.

  Percentage of customers using Forest Holidays cabins who consider the service to be good or very good.

  Percentage of payments to suppliers paid in accordance with the relevant terms of trading.

  The 1997/98 Agency target is 90% comprising:

  87.5% satisfaction for forest recreation day visitors

  87.5% satisfaction for Forest Holiday users.

  95% payments to suppliers on time in accordance with the relevant terms of trading

  PQ No. 10717
  The number of timber customers for each of our Regions, as defined in paragraph 7.9 of the Forest Enterprise Corporate Plan 1997–2000, during 1996/97 was as indicated below:

  1996/97

  North Scotland

  36

  South Scotland

  44

  Wales

  80

  North & East England

  75

  South & West England

  99

  Total GB

  275

  1. The UK figure is 59 less than the total for the Regions. This reflects the fact that many merchants trade in more than one Region.

  2. The figures do not include individuals who purchased small amounts of firewood.
  304
  PQ No. 10718
  In answer to parts a. and b. of your question, I set out below the total area of land in each Forest Enterprise Region which is held on lease:

  Hectares

  North Scotland

  4,471.5

  South Scotland

  1,103.5

  Wales

  24,022.8

  North & East England

  40,770.0

  South & West England

  31,172.8

  total Great Britain

  101,540.6

  We do not hold the information centrally by individual wood. In respect of part c. there are general sporting reservations in our titles over the following areas of Forestry Commission land, by Region, to a third party as follows:

  Hectares

  North Scotland

  nil

  South Scotland

  nil

  Wales

  48,100

  North & East England

  23,600

  South & West England

  22,100

  Total GB

  93,800

  PQ No. 10719
  We maintain links with a wide range of sports epresentative bodies at national, regional and forest district level. There are no unique contacts at regional level.
  The main national fora and contacts are:

  Wildlife and Countryside Link forum of countryside and recreation NGOs

  Countryside Recreation Network of statutory agencies

  Outdoor Pursuits Committee of the CCPR (Countryside Council For Physical Recreation)

  Sports Council

  RAC on motor car rallying

  Auto-Cycle Union on motorcycle enduro races

  British Orienteering Federation

  British Horse Society

  Ramblers Association

  Mountaineering Council for Scotland

  British Cycle Federation

  British Cyclecross Federation

  Scottish Cyclists Union

  Welsh Cyclists Union

  There are also many contacts with local sports clubs at the Forest District level.
  I regret we do not hold central records of permits issued for specialised sports.

  PQ No. 10720
  The performance measure referred to in para 9.23 of the 1997–2000 Corporate Plan is one of our Agency performance measures set out on Page 52. This records annual changes to the number of visitors to sample Forestry Commission forests.
  For this measure, counters have been installed at visitor centres, car parks and forest drives in 86 forest locations covering a statistically representative sample of the most heavily visited areas across all Forest Districts. The objective is to measure trends in visitor numbers. 1997–98 will be the first year for measuring these trends.

  305
  In view of the size of the Forestry Commission estate, the number of accessible woods and public access points it is not practicable to physically count all visitors. No definitive records are therefore available for each Forest Enterprise region.
  The Forestry Commission does however participate in the biennial household day visits survey carried out by Social and Planning Research (S & PR) for a consortium of Departments and Agencies. The most recent survey was conducted in 1996. As part of the survey several thousand adults were interviewed at home and asked about the destinations of leisure day trips. They were also asked if a wood or forest formed part of a trip and if so who was the perceived forest owner or manager. The responses were weighted to provide estimates of visits to Forestry Commission forests and woods. On this basis the 1996 S & PR survey estimated that 42 million day visits were made to Forestry Commission forests made up as follows:

  England: 33 million

  Scotland: 6 million

  Wales: 3 million.

  There is no S & PR data for individual Forest Enterprise Regions.
  The 42 million figure is lower than the 50 million visits quoted for the whole Forestry Commission estate in para 9.4 of the 1997–2000 Corporate Plan since the latter also includes holiday visits not undertaken from the family home.

  PQ No. 10721
  Forest Enterprise has no specific list of stakeholders to be consulted on any review we may undertake over the next 3 years. The Corporate Plan sets out current policies, strategies and resouce allocations. This is circulated to over 1,000 people amongst public agencies, local authorities, NGOs, local communities and user groups. We are actively seeking comment from recipients on the broad thrust of strategies in the Corporate Plan. Focus groups will also be contacted to look at particular topics.
  The planned net expenditure on Forest Recreation in 1997–98, by Region, is as follows:

  £ million

  North Scotland

  0.8

  South Scotland

  0.8

  Wales

  0.6

  North & East England

  1.0

  South & West England

  1.8

  Actual net expenditure will depend upon visitor usage, trading conditions in income generating activities and the settling down of the new register of accounts in its first year of operation.

  PQ No. 10722
  Forest shops and catering facilities are provided at most Forest Enterprise Visitor Centres. These are operated in two ways; either by direct district management or by concessions. The 1996–7 data and results relate solely to FE managed forest shops and catering facilities which are usually run on an integrated set of accounts for each centre with shared buildings, services and management costs. The diversity in unit net income reflects the variety of visitor numbers to different forests and the range of facilities provided by Forest Enterprise

  Region

  Number of forest shops/catering Complexes

  Net income (£000)

  North Scotland

  2

  22

  South Scotland

  5

  25

  Wales

  1

  3

  North & East England

  6

  64

  South & West England

  5

  53

  306
  PQ No.10723
  The percentage of SSSIs managed in accordance with plans endorsed by statutory conservation agencies is a Forest Enterprise Agency performance measure. A target of 100 per cent. has been set by the Forestry Commissioners as the proportion of SSSIs with endorsed plans by 31.3.98. This includes preparation, maintenance and monitoring.
  The 1997–98 Agency 'target allocated by Region is as follows:

  Numbers

  North Scotland

  80

  South Scotland

  54

  Wales

  61

  North & East England

  90

  South & West England

  90

  PQ No. 10724
  The percentage of Scheduled Ancient Monuments managed in accordance with plans endorsed by statutory heritage agencies is a Forest Enterprise Agency Performance measure.
  A target of 40 per cent., of 400 has been set by Forestry Commissioners as the number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments to have endorsed plans by 31.3.98. The aim is to ensure that all Scheduled Ancient Monuments on Forestry Commission land have endorsed plans by 31.3.2000. This 1997–98 Agency target has been allocated to Regions as follows:

  Percentage

  Number

  North Scotland

  40

  70

  South Scotland

  43

  52

  Wales

  90

  122

  North & East England

  30

  58

  South & West England

  30

  104

  The varying rates in planned progress between Regions reflects the range of monuments, the variety of plan requirements and the need to pace work in harmony with heritage agency partners.
  I should mention that all monuments with or without beneficial management plans will continue to be safeguarded from potentially damaging operations through check systems in Forest Districts before work commences in any forest area.
  I hope this letter provides the answers you require.
  I am sorry I cannot provide full answers for questions numbers 10711, 10712 and 10719 but you will understand we are putting in place mechanisms to collate this information during 1997/98 which will be available at the time of the annual report for that year.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has(a) to extend part T planning regulations to residential dwellings and (b) to take other measures to increase the stock of accessible housing for disabled people. [10858]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The Scottish Office is considering proposals to extend the access requirements of part T of the technical standards for compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990 to cover new, converted or adapted dwellings, taking account of cost implications, and comments made during consultations on draft amendments in 1995.
  307
  Community care, including provision of new or converted buildings accessible to disabled people, and adaptations to existing dwellings, is a national housing priority.

  A1
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the maximum and average yearly traffic flows on the Al road at Pencraig Hill; and what proportion of that traffic consists of heavy goods vehicles. [11060]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The average annual daily flow for 1996 was 11,500 vehicles with 20 per cent., 2,300, comprising heavy goods vehicles. This equates in 1996 to a total of 4,197,500 vehicles of which 839,500 were heavy goods vehicles. The peak traffic flow in August was approximately 14,720 vehicles per day. This equates to a total of 456,320 vehicles in August.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his amendment to the Lothian region structure plan stating that dualling of the road to Dunbar is now in hand. [11063]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The modification to the Lothian region structure plan reflects the very considerable progress already made and the work under way in dualling the A1. As my hon. Friend is aware, preparatory work to dual the stage between Haddington and Dunbar will continue within the Scottish Office during the review of the trunk road programme.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the new bridge at the end of the A1 dual carriageway at Haddington. [11064]

  Mr. Chisholm
  A total of £340,000.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what costs have been incurred on(a) preparing plans, (b) acquiring land and (c) other preliminary work for dualling the A1 road between Haddington and Dunbar. [11065]

  Mr. Chisholm
  As at 30 June 1997, the Scottish Office had incurred expenditure of £1.24 million on preparation work on dualling the section of the Al between Haddington and Dunbar. No expenditure has been incurred to date by the Scottish Office on the acquisition of land or preliminary work.

  Drug Addiction
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in place for monitoring the use and effectiveness of methadone as a heroin substitute. [11271]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Arrangements for the delivery of substitute prescribing programmes, including monitoring the use and effectiveness of services, are a matter for local consideration in the first instance. The use and effectiveness of substitute prescribing programmes are issues addressed in new national guidance on drug misuse services which has been prepared by my department, discussed with the Scottish Advisory Committee on Drug Misuse, and is now the subject of wide consultation.
  308
  An additional £1 million is being made available to health boards in this financial year to fund shared care arrangements for drug misusers, which will include monitoring and evaluation of projects.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the use of methadone as a heroin substitute for heroin addicts in Scotland. [11270]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Substitute prescribing, including the use of methadone as a heroin substitute, is a method of harm reduction which has an important part to play in tackling drug misuse in Scotland. It needs to form part of a comprehensive package of care tailored to the individual needs of the drug misuser, which includes counselling and support and supervision of the taking of the drug, to prevent leakage onto the illicit market.

  My Department is issuing detailed guidance on good practice in substitute prescribing to all GPs and relevant health professionals in Scotland.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the expenditure on the provision of methadone to heroin addicts(a) by health board and (b) in total for each of the last 10 years in Scotland. [11272]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information by health board and Scotland for the financial years 1994–95 to 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  The costs shown include the value of ingredients and the cost of fees paid to community pharmacists for dispensing the drug.

  The information is not available in the form requested before 1994–95.

  Cost of methadone prescribing: 1994–95 to 1996–97

  Health board

  1994–95 (£)

  1995–96 (£)

  1996–97 (£)

  Argyll and Clyde

  100,617

  142,918

  206,117

  Ayrshire and Arran

  156,791

  166,850

  251,422

  Borders

  4,875

  5,353

  8,332

  Dumfries and Galloway

  31,710

  48,304

  53,417

  Fife

  30,591

  59,354

  86,943

  Forth Valley

  94,810

  98,901

  113,965

  Grampian

  186,454

  264,363

  269,263

  Greater Glasgow

  1,169,894

  1,620,819

  1,924,393

  Highland

  8,082

  15,337

  15,699

  Lanarkshire

  36,891

  55,309

  85,164

  Lothian

  435,881

  533,992

  631,033

  Orkney

  409

  351

  405

  Shetland

  96

  1,390

  1,712

  Tayside

  253,504

  292,917

  348,973

  Western Isles

  16

  21

  4

  Scotland

  2,510,621

  3,306,179

  3,996,832

  Needle Exchange Services
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the qualification requirements for employees involved in needle exchange services. [11273]

  Mr. Galbraith
  No formal qualification for needle exchange workers exists, but, under the framework of guidance issued by the Scottish Office, such needle and syringe exchange schemes must be supervised by a registered medical practitioner.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ask a Scottish Lord of Appeal in Ordinary to discuss the Lockerbie case with(a) Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, (b) the Lord President, (c) Lord Mackay of Drumadom and (d) the Lord Advocate and report to him. [11129]

  Mr. McLeish
  No.

  Crime and Punishment Act
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which further provisions of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 he intends to implement; and if he will make a statement. [12072]

  Mr. McLeish
  The key objective of our criminal justice policy is to protect the public effectively. It is against this background that we have reviewed the provisions of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997.

  We have already made a commencement order bringing certain provisions of the 1997 Act into force on 1 August—SI 1997/1712 (C.72) (S.128). We intend to bring a further tranche of provisions into force in October, including mandatory minimum sentences for persistent drug traffickers—section 2 of the 1997 Act—and new arrangements for criminal legal aid—part V of the 1997 Act).

  We remain committed to consistency and honesty in sentencing, and will be bringing forward proposals to further these aims. However, we have concluded that the new arrangements for early release contained in part III of the 1997 Act are unsatisfactory and impractical, and we do not therefore propose to implement them in their present form.

  We are not satisfied that section 1 of the Act, which provides for the sentences to be imposed in certain circumstances on repeat violent and sex offenders, as enacted, provides proper protection for the public against these offenders. However, given the seriousness with which we view the issue of repeat offending, we shall be consulting on how best to provide for the appropriate sentencing and improved supervision of such offenders.

  In addition, we shall be taking a range of other steps to deal effectively with offenders and improve public protection. We shall be commencing section 5 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 to enable the Secretary of State to set up pilot schemes for the electronic tagging of offenders.

  Community-based sentences have an important part to play in punishing and rehabilitating offenders. I am therefore looking closely at the full range of disposals, both custodial and non-custodial, against our objectives of improving public safety, dealing effectively and rigorously with offending behaviour and increasing public confidence in the criminal justice system.

  We will be consulting further on other options in developing a new strategy on criminal justice for Scotland which is tough, effective, workable and coherent.

  Fisheries Research Services
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the key performance targets he has set for Fisheries Research Services for 1997–98. [12073]

  Mr. Chisholm
  For this, the first year as an agency, I have set the following targets.

  Delivery of service

  To carry out a customer satisfaction survey.

  To achieve 70 per cent. of the milestones agreed for R and D projects.

  To maintain, pro rata, FRS's publication output.

  Quality of service

  To submit, as required for accreditation of chemical measurements, the quality manual and documentation to the United Kingdom accreditation service.

  To review the work of the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory through a visiting group and to report by December 1997.

  Financial targets

  To carry out the agreed Scottish Office programme within the agreed costs.

  To recover full economic costs from external customers.

  To establish the proportional administrative costs of FRS and to compare them with those of other agencies.

  To establish the cost per day of the FRS research vessels and to compare them with those of similar research vessels.

  To establish the unit cost of fish disease inspections and to compare with other similar programmes.

  These various measures or tasks should provide a solid basis for evaluating performance over the medium term, by establishing a time series for certain indicators and by the requirement for regular external scrutiny, whether by customers or scientific peers.

  Scottish Tourist Board
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the forthcoming policy and financial management review of the Scottish tourist board. [12161]

  Mr. Dewar
  As part of the Government's rolling programme of five-yearly policy and financial management reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department will conduct a thorough review of the Scottish tourist board during 1997. The first stage of the review will take the form of a prior options study which will include an examination of the scope for discontinuing, privatising, contracting out or transferring to another body some or all of the functions carried out by the board. This study is now under way and I would welcome comments from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 6 October 1997 to:

  Mr. Neil Clement

  The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  Area 3-G

  Victoria Quay

  EDINBURGH

  EH6 6QQ

  Referendum Publicity Costs
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the final allocation in 1997–98 for expenditure on publicity in respect of the referendum on a Scottish Parliament. [12162]

  Mr. Dewar
  In 1997–98, £700,000 will made available through voted provision to meet the cost of publicity and other miscellaneous expenditure associated with the referendum on a Scottish Parliament. The provision will be made available through the miscellaneous category in the Scottish Office Home Department vote.

  Parliamentary approval of this new expenditure will be sought in a 1997–98 winter supplementary estimate for the law, order and protective services, police grant and social work services, Scotland vote—class XIII, vote 5. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure will be met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charter Unit
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the role of the charter unit in his Department. [9714]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The charter unit is responsible for taking forward the charter programme under our direction. In particular, it administers the charter mark award scheme, provides guidance to public service organisations, and disseminates best practice in public service provision.

  Freedom of Information
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received regarding freedom of information. [9719]

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received regarding freedom of information legislation. [9721]

  Dr. David Clark
  My Department has received representations from more than 70 organisations and individuals, all welcoming the Government's plans for greater openness and a freedom of information Act.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress of the White Paper on freedom of information. [9723]

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the proposed White Paper on freedom of information. [9735]

  Dr. Clark
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the obstacles to the early introduction of a White Paper on freedom of information legislation. [9724]
  312
  Dr. Clark
  The time necessary to prepare fully considered proposals on this integral part of our radical programme of constitutional reform.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he will take to study the experience of other countries in developing freedom of information legislation. [9726]

  Dr. Clark
  In developing our proposals for freedom of information legislation we are studying the experience of a number of other countries. I am planning to visit Canada, Australia and New Zealand later this year to look at the implementation and operation of their freedom of information regimes. I also took the opportunity to look at the American experience of freedom of information during my recent trip to the United States of America.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultations he has had with ministerial colleagues on proposed freedom of information legislation. [9731]

  Dr. Clark
  I have had a number of useful discussions with ministerial colleagues.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his proposals for freedom of information legislation will apply to(a) British Nuclear Fuels plc and (b) other publicly owned companies. [11227]

  Dr. Clark
  Our intention is that the freedom of information Act will apply not only to central Government Departments and agencies but to the public sector more widely. Details will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper.

  Charters
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to reform the programme of charters. [9720]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) earlier today.

  Public Services (Elderly People)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what initiatives he is taking to consult elderly people on the use of public services. [9722]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I attended a forum of older people on 8 July. The participants discussed their use of public services, identifying key issues of concern, and ways in which new technology could be used to deliver services to older people. They also commented on an early draft chapter of a booklet we are producing with the Citizenship Foundation, Age Concern and Saga, which will cover rights as they relate to older people.

  Public Services
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he plans to conclude his discussions on the citizens charter; and what are his plans for promoting and developing the quality of public services. [9725]
  313
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  As we have already announced, we will be consulting widely on the future direction of the charter programme. We will take into account the results of this consultation and, of course, the report of the previous Public Service Committee on which the hon. Member sat. I hope that, around the end of this year, we will be in a position to relaunch the programme as an initiative that will make a real difference to the lives of ordinary people.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the areas in which the electronic delivery of public services will have the greatest impact. [9728]

  Dr. David Clark
  Information technology will underscore our better government programme, informing all we do as a Government. We intend that electronic delivery systems will have a wide impact on all Government services in every part of the country and will benefit everybody.

  Better Government Programme
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his better government programme. [9729]

  Dr. David Clark
  The White Paper on Better Government will set out how we intend to meet our commitment to rebuild the bond of trust between Government and the people, by opening Government out and by providing accessible services which better match the way that people need live their lives.

  The White Paper will address four challenges for Government as we enter the new millennium:

  Cleaning up politics;

  Getting good results and rooting out waste;

  Listening to the people;

  Working together across institutional boundaries.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidance he has given the Commissioner for Public Appointments regarding his role in relation to reappointments of existing chairpersons of public bodies whose terms of office are or shortly will be due for renewal. [9730]

  Dr. David Clark
  None. The Commissioner for Public Appointments is independent of Government. His code of practice for public appointments procedures, which came into effect on 1 July 1996, states"Reappointments to the same post should not be automatic. The performance of the post-holder should be reviewed. A second reappointment should be exceptional and normally subject to a scrutiny process, including considering other candidates."
  The code is supplemented by detailed guidance for Departments. Copies of the code and guidance are available in the Library.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government's future plans for deregulation. [9732]
  314
  Dr. David Clark
  We are committed to ensuring that regulations are simple, helpful and fair. We aim to deliver responsible and responsive regulation for business, particularly small firms, and the citizen. I have appointed Chris Haskins to chair a new better regulation task force and the deregulation unit has similarly been renamed the better regulation unit to reflect the fact that our priority is to get regulation right.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what additional steps he is taking to ensure that food is safe to eat. [9733]

  Dr. David Clark
  At the request of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I chair the ministerial group on food safety. As part of its work on the establishment of a Food Standards Agency, the group has looked at ways in which we can improve food safety arrangements in the interim. This work has involved a number of Government Departments, principally the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health. Later today, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement setting out these measures in full.

  Quangos
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his plans to(a) abolish quangos and (b) introduce a significant element of democratic accountability to quangos. [9734]

  Dr. David Clark
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on 18 June,Official Report, column 174, the Government believe that the previous Administration created too many unelected, undemocratic quangos. We have therefore instituted a review of quangos with the aim of reducing overall numbers.

  Last Thursday, Official Report, column 693, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), I announced proposals to issue a discussion paper in the autumn, considering how democratic oversight of public bodies might best be enhanced. In the light of consultation, we have brought forward proposals in the White Paper on Better Government to be published later this year.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to improve the accountability of next steps agencies to Parliament. [9712]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We are considering whether there are any issues that need to be addressed in this area as part of our wider commitment to modernise Government services and make them more responsive.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number and proportion of(a) Asians and (b) Afro-Caribbeans in each grade in the civil service. [11103]
  315
  Dr. David Clark
  Information on the ethnic origin of civil servants is collected using a voluntary, self-classification, confidential questionnaire. The number

  align="center">Grade Level by ethnic origin

  Grade level

  Afro-Caribbean

  Percentage Caribbean

  Afro-Asian

  Percentage Asian

  Total Respondents

  SCS (1–5)

  13

  0.34

  43

  1.13

  3,819

  6

  18

  0.42

  91

  2.10

  4,325

  7

  82

  0.55

  216

  1.45

  14,906

  SEO

  68

  0.33

  263

  1.28

  20,500

  HEO

  553

  0.84

  736

  1.12

  65,839

  EO

  1,494

  1.54

  2,280

  2.35

  96,929

  AO

  4,275

  2.97

  5,873

  4.08

  14,4099

  AA

  2,212

  3.47

  2,684

  4.20

  63,837

  Other

  5

  0.33

  8

  0.53

  1,505

  Summary information

  8,720

  1.20

  12,194

  2.03

  415,759

  Central Office of Information
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets have been set for the Central Office of Information for 1997–98. [12164]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have set Central Office of Information the following key performance targets for 1997–98:

  to achieve a surplus of £1 million in modified historical cost terms after recovering all costs including interest on borrowings;

  to achieve a further 2 per cent. increase in efficiency as measured by limit cost reduction;

  to achieve an average score of 8.25 out of 10 for the COI customer satisfaction index.

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what performance targets he has set for the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency for 1997–98. [12166]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have set the following key performance targets for the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency for 1997–98:

  to break even on an accruals basis;

  to deliver CCTA services within voted provisions;

  to establish a baseline for operation within the CCTA customer charter;

  to secure savings which will result in a 5 per cent. reduction in the cost of supporting services in 1998–99;

  to achieve 85 per cent. of customers assessing satisfaction with CCTA services at levels one and two of a five-point scale.

  Civil Service College
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what key performance targets he has set for the Civil Service College for the current year. [12165]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The key performance targets for the Civil Service College for 1997–98 are:

  to break-even in accrual accounting terms;

  to earn £1,500,000 from consultancy;

  to attract 1,515 students from the private sector;

  to attract 900 students from the private sector;

  to earn 88 per cent. of students' course evaluation in the highest two of six categories.

  316
  and proportion of Asian and Afro-Caribbean civil servants, by grade equivalents, who have submitted a questionnaire, as at 1 April 1996 is set out in the table.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parades and Marches
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations applied to march in Northern Ireland in 1996 more than five times. [9978]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not available in the format requested and would incur disproportionate cost to provide.

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals she has to extend the remit of the Parades Commission to(a) grant special protection for traditional parades and (b) monitor other aspects of local culture in Northern Ireland. [10123]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government have received representations about the remit of the Parades Commission, and is considering extending this remit beyond that recommended by the North report.

  The forthcoming parades legislation will, as proposed by North, provide for the commission to take into account a range of factors including whether a parade is of long-standing. The commission will, in any particular case, weight up all the factors before reaching a conclusion.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many parades were applied for in 1996; how many were perceived as(a) unionist, (b) nationalist and (c) other; and which organisations filed for more than 10 parades in that year. [10125]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not available in the format requested and would incur disproportionate cost to provide. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 29 July 1997,Official Report, column 158.

  Internet
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will ensure that the Northern Ireland Office's web site on the Internet has adequate links to and from the web site of the Central Office of Information; and if she will make a statement. [11005]
  317
  Mr. Murphy
  My Department is fully committed to using the potential of the Internet as an international communications medium and as an aid to open government. The NIO web site has more than 400 pages of information, regularly updated, on all political developments, security, crime, policing and community relations in Northern Ireland and including all press releases issued. In the period January to July 1997, visits to the site have increased from 1,187 to 25,353 per month.

  A re-design now nearing completion will enhance content, visual appeal, user friendliness and links to and from other sites both within and outside Government, including the CCTA open government site and through it the Central Office of Information.

  Expenditure
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list each increase in spending in excess of £50,000 by sub-heading in the Northern Ireland estimates, which she has approved. [11468]

  Mr. Murphy
  The table lists the specific areas where an increase in spending in excess of £50,000 has been approved in the 1997–98 Northern Ireland main estimates:

  Line

  Net total 1997–98

  Total net provision 1996–97

  Increase £000

  Department of Agriculture Vote 1

  C: Domestic policy—National

  27,801

  17,177

  10,624

  Department of Agriculture Vote 2

  A: Agri-food development services

  17,861

  17,383

  478

  C: Veterinary services

  17,800

  16,823

  977

  G: Fisheries

  5,198

  4,027

  1,171

  J: EU structural funds

  3,694

  3,304

  390

  K: EU Peace and Reconciliation—Dept. Exp.

  6,801

  6,588

  213

  L: Matching funding for EU PRP—Dept. Exp.

  2,265

  2,196

  69

  Department of Economic Development Vote 1

  A: Land and buildings

  30,699

  22,399

  8,300

  B: Promotion

  9,171

  8,858

  313

  C: Assistance to Industry

  7,352

  6,467

  885

  D: Assistance to Industry

  105,291

  95,155

  10,136

  Department of Economic Development Vote 2

  F: Development of Tourism

  13,935

  13,580

  355

  H: Energy and Mineral

  21,267

  16,475

  4,792

  J: EU Peace and Reconciliation—Dept. Exp.

  7,003

  2,574

  4,429

  L: Matching funding for EUPRP—Dept. Exp.

  2,335

  858

  1,477

  M: Matching funding for EUPRP

  2,968

  473

  2,495

  Department of Economic Development Vote 3

  E: EU Peace and Reconciliation—Dept. Exp.

  12,416

  7,598

  4,818

  G: Matching funding for EUPRP—Dept. Exp.

  4,139

  2,486

  1,653

  H: Matching funding for EUPRP

  1,130

  1,026

  104

  Department of the Environment Vote 1

  E: Road passenger services

  11,938

  11,735

  203

  318

  Line

  Net total 1997–98

  Total net provision 1996–97

  Increase £000

  I: Matching funding for EUPRP

  174

  50

  124

  K: Other expenditure

  6,127

  6,000

  127

  Department of the Environment Vote 2

  B: Housing—other expenditure

  2,345

  2,212

  133

  D: Housing grant to NIHE (Public Corp)

  138,000

  136,290

  1,710

  Department of the Environment Vote 3

  A: Water Service

  146,917

  145,399

  1,518

  B: Privatisation

  3,799

  2,499

  1,300

  Department of the Environment Vote 4

  A: Environment and Heritage Service

  21,501

  21,419

  82

  F: Rate Collection Agency

  6,597

  6,397

  200

  G: Ordnance Survey of NI

  5,118

  4,913

  205

  L: Matching funding for EU PRP

  9,349

  2,155

  7,194

  Department of the Environment Vote 5

  A: Fire Services

  43,836

  43,471

  365

  Department of Education Vote 1

  A: Education and library boards—grants in aid

  843,011

  831,458

  11,553

  C: Voluntary and grant integrated schools

  181,343

  168,211

  13,132

  E: CCEA

  8,776

  8,485

  291

  I: Miscellaneous services, Administration and Research

  2,588

  2,384

  204

  J: F E Incorporation

  1,508

  1,000

  508

  X: Matching funding for EU PRP

  4,853

  1,082

  3,771

  Department of Education Vote 2

  A: Pensions, lump sums etc. Teachers Superannation

  39,677

  29,171

  10,506

  Department of Health and Social Services Vote 1

  A: Hospital community H and PSS and family HS

  1,272,324

  1,246,301

  26,023

  C: Family HS (demand led) general medical services

  72,643

  69,907

  2,736

  D: Family HS (demand led) Pharmaceutical services

  149,524

  141,736

  7,788

  E: Family HS (demand led) dental services

  46,555

  42,373

  4,182

  F: Family HS (demand led) ophthalmic services

  10,937

  9,829

  1,108

  H: Welfare foods

  7,202

  7,026

  176

  J: Other centrally financed services

  2,553

  2,261

  292

  K: Additional current advances to HSS boards

  53,000

  44,843

  8,157

  Department of Health and Social Services Vote 3

  E: Special Initiatives

  3,168

  1,382

  1,786

  H: EU PRP—Departmental expenditure

  5,939

  4,683

  1,256

  I: Matching funding for EU PRP—Depart expend

  1,980

  1,561

  419

  K: Matching funding for EU PRP

  2,499

  1,883

  616

  319

  Line

  Net total 1997–98

  Total net provision 1996–97

  Increase £000

  Department of Health and Social Services Vote 5

  A: Benefits including Income Support for Elderly

  1,121,618

  1,055,806

  65,812

  B: Income support—non pensioners and jobseekers

  601,905

  572,669

  29,236

  Department of Health and Social Services Vote 6

  A: Independent living funds

  5,198

  5,077

  121

  B: Housing benefit (Rent)

  270,567

  263,901

  6,666

  C: Discretionary Rent Allowance

  689

  469

  220

  D: Housing benefit (Rates)

  27,910

  26,800

  1,110

  E: Payments into Social fund (Regulated)

  3,564

  3,440

  124

  Department of Finance and Personnel Vote 1

  A: Financial administration and Central Management of CS

  13,322

  13,008

  314

  E: Business Development Services

  8,330

  7,983

  347

  Department of Finance and Personnel Vote 3

  D: Matching funding for the EU PRP

  415

  300

  115

  Northern Ireland Audit Office Vote 1

  A: Northern Ireland Audit Office

  3,645

  3,448

  197

  Parliamentary Ombudsman for NI and NI Commissioner for Complaints Vote 1

  A: Parliamentary Ombudsman for NI and NI Commissioner for Complaints

  587

  515

  72

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many plastic baton rounds were fired between 1 and 14 July in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997; and if she will make a statement [11067]

  Mr. Ingram
  In response to the widespread and serious public disorder during these periods, the number of plastic baton rounds fired between 1 and 14 July 1996 was 8,098 and in the same period in 1997 was 2,510, although the figures for 1997 may be subject to adjustment.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the reasons for the non-reappointment of Geraldine Donaghy to the Southern health and social services board; and if she will review the decision. [11494]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ms Donaghy's four-year period of appointment as non-executive director of the Southern health and social services board expired on 31 March 1997. In reviewing the vacancies in the Southern health and social services board, the Department of Health and Social Services decided to consider the merits of other candidates before making its recommendation to the then health Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire,320
  North-East (Mr. Moss). This procedure is consistent with the Commisioner for Public Appointments code of practice.

  On becoming Minister with responsibility for the Department of Health and Social Services, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) was presented with a number of candidates rated as suitable for appointment by a panel which included an independent member, constituted under guidelines issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The decision was based on the merits of these individual candidates and there was no reason to review this decision.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the public appointments procedure in Northern Ireland in respect of nominations from the voluntary and community sector to health and social services boards. [11495]

  Mr. Ingram
  The is no statutory requirement that the department of Health and Social Services seek nominations from the voluntary and community sector for appointments to health and social services boards. Appointment opportunities within DHSS bodies are advertised openly and anyone is free to self-nominate and be considered for such appointments. This is in line with the DHSS procedures for public appointments, which follow the Commissioner for Public Appointments' code of practice.

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the industrial research and technology unit for the financial year 1997–98. [12070]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following key targets have been set for the agency for 1997–98:

  1. To maintain new user participation in the near market compete programme at 10 per cent.

  2. To increase the average industry contribution to the compete and start—pre-competitive—programme by 1 per cent.

  3. To achieve full cost recovery for scientific services.

  4. To maintain NAMAS and BSI Accreditations.

  5. To achieve efficiency savings of 3 per cent.

  Prison Service
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Prison Service intends to publish its 1997 corporate and business plan; and what performance targets have been set for 1997–98. [12071]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service's 1997 corporate and business plan was published today. For 1997–98 the following key performance targets have been set:

  1. To ensure 100 per cent. security for prisoners in high and top risk categories. To ensure at least 99.5 per cent. security for prisoners in medium and low risk categories.

  2. To ensure that the number of significant security breaches during 1997–98 does not exceed 7.3 per 100 prisoners.

  3. To achieve an average five per cent. improvement in constructive activity hours during 1997–98.

  321

  4. To conduct a further customer satisfaction survey of visitors in each establishment.

  5. To offer sentence planning to all prisoners and young offenders who wish to participate in the scheme and to achieve a 50 per cent. uptake from eligible prisoners.

  6. To ensure that the average cost per prisoner place does not exceed £76,252.

  7. To achieve an average of five days training per member of staff.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Standards Agency
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responses he has received to the consultation on Professor James's report on proposals for a food standards agency; and if he will make a statement. [11854]

  Mr. John Cunningham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I, with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales, and for Northern Ireland, welcome the excellent response to the consultation on Professor James's report. The Government have received replies from more than 630 organisations and individuals. The responses show that there is widespread support for the proposal to establish a food standards agency which would be a non-departmental public body accountable to Parliament through health Ministers and operating on a basis of openness and transparency; create a clear separation between the responsibilities for regulating food safety and for promoting the interests of food-related industries; promote food safety from "plough to plate".

  Many detailed points were raised in the consultation, which we are now studying further. Our aim is to publish a White Paper in the autumn setting out the Government's response to Professor James's recommendations in the light of the first round of public consultation. The White Paper will itself be the subject of a second consultation and a draft Bill will then be drafted and published. We shall bring the Bill before Parliament as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  It is the Government's intention to establish a shadow food standards commission once the necessary legislation has made sufficient progress through its parliamentary stages. We are also taking a range of measures to improve food safety arrangements in the transitional period before establishment of a food standards agency. The Minister for Food Safety and the Minister for Public Health will take on a joint role in preparing the way for the food standards agency and ensuring maximum protection for the public. They will carry out this day-to-day role in close consultation with their ministerial counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Overall policy co-ordination will rest with the ministerial committee on food safety, chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  A key feature of the transitional arrangements will be developing further the independent advisory committees that advise the Government as a whole on food safety and related matters. The Food Advisory Committee will be given a special role in the handling of food safety issues that go beyond the remit of any one expert committee.
  322
  In addition to these UK-wide measures, the Secretary of State for Health and I are taking specific steps to improve the management of food safety issues in England. A joint food safety and standards group will be formed from the relevant staff in MAFF and the Department of Health from 1 September 1997. The group will be headed by Mr. Geoffrey Podger, a Department of Health official currently seconded to MAFF. The new joint group will report to Ministers in both Departments. In Scotland, all food safety issues are handled by a single team which comes under the responsibility of the Scottish health Minister; in Wales all food safety issues come under the responsibility of the Welsh health Minister; and in Northern Ireland the Department of Health and Social Services has lead responsibility for food safety issues.

  The chief medical officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, will be given a new high level co-ordinating role in the handling of issues of potential public concern about food. Sir Kenneth will have particular responsibility for a new joint MAFF-Department of Health risk communication unit which is to be established and further reinforced by the appointment of an external adviser. This role will be undertaken in consultation with territorial Departments.

  We are also continuing to strengthen our approach to food safety issues taking account of the high priority we give to the protection of public health, the rigorous enforcement of measures designed to protect the public and our commitment to openness, transparency and responsiveness to consumer concerns.

  I am placing copies of all the responses to the consultation on Professor James's report in the Library of the House.

  Veterinary Field Service
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the veterinary field service will become a next steps executive agency; and if he will make a statement. [12068]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have decided that the veterinary field service should not at present become an executive agency.

  Following an internal review of MAFF veterinary services under the last Government, the VFS structure was streamlined. One recommendation in that review was that the VFS should become a next steps agency. It would be inappropriate to proceed with a move to agency status given the move towards establishing the food standards agency and devolution, which have implications for the state veterinary service.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the dumping of radioactive waste at sea. [12069]

  Mr. Rooker
  My Department and others concerned with the disposal of radioactive waste have undertaken detailed searches of archive records relating to dumping at sea at Beaufort's dyke and elsewhere. Details of the searches carried out so far and the findings of each Department have been placed in the Library of the House.
  323
  Information was found of two further instances of radioactive waste being dumped, or possibly being dumped, in Beaufort's dyke in addition to that reported to the House on 1 July, Official Report, columns 1586–60. The first instance was identified by the Scottish Office from a reference on one paper and relates to a disposal being arranged in 1957 at Cairn Ryan, a port used for the disposal of munitions to Beaufort's dyke, of a damaged closed caesium 137 source. There is no indication of the disposal site or any other information on the form of disposal. The level of radioactivity is described as about one quarter curie.

  The second instance was identified by my Department concerning the dumping in 1976 of about 10,000 tonnes of building rubble and soil from the demolition of the premises of Thorium Ltd., a company that extracted thorium from minerals and left a waste product containing enhanced levels of naturally radioactive material. The authorisation required that the average radioactivity of this demolition material should be less than 10-4 microcuries/gm and was not to exceed 5 x 10-3 microcuries/gm in any part.

  In respect of other locations not previously recognised as dump sites for radioactive waste, the Scottish Office has identified the following information:
  scrap from a Ferranti radioactive valve manufacturing unit was dumped by Ferranti between 1954 and 1957 in the Firth of Forth off North Queensferry. An estimate at the time put this at 7.5 mg of radium bromide at six-monthly intervals;
  advice to UK Time Ltd. in 1949 to dispose of 35,000 luminised dials likely to have contained in total between 25 and 50mg radium either on land or in sealed drums at least 5 miles off shore. A subsequent paper suggests that such dumping continued in the North sea during the 1950s;
  the dumping by ICI Ltd. of two anti-static devices—strontium 90—at the explosives disposal site off the Isle of Arran prior to 1958;
  the dumping in 1963 at Garroch head, on the Clyde, of material from the clear-up of a former radium factory at Balloch.

  In checking these historic records, Departments have in addition identified instances when liquid wastes or sludge containing small amounts of radioactivity were dumped at sea through dispersion into the water column from ships. These disposals were from the naval dockyards at Chatham and Rosyth into the North sea beyond the Thames estuary and the Firth of Forth respectively during the mid to late 1960s and early 1970s; sludges from industrial sources containing enhanced natural radioactivity into the Liverpool bay area, and possibly Morecambe bay and the Humber estuary, during the early to mid 1970s; and mildly radioactive solutions from early experiments at MAFF's Lowestoft laboratory in the North sea in the late 1940s.

  Where possible, these reports are being following up to see whether further information can be obtained.

  On the evidence of the papers that have been examined, I am advised that, even using cautious assumptions, it is estimated that radiation exposures to the public following any dispersal of radioactivity in the sea would give rise to radiation dose levels well within the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommended dose limit and a small fraction of those arising from natural background radioactivity. Nevertheless, I am arranging for the National Radiological Protection Board to make an independent assessment of this information
  324
  and anything further that can be found. In particular, I shall ask it to advise me of the radiological significance of the disposals and on whether there is any need for monitoring over and above that which is already undertaken. I shall report further to the House when I have received the board's advice.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on the selective cull; and if he will make a statement. [12074]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since 1 May, progress with the selective cull has substantially improved. In Northern Ireland, the cull is complete except for six animals and any which have been imported from Great Britain. In Great Britain, we have completed nearly half of the natal herd visits. In Scotland, we have completed all of them. In England and Wales, all but a few of the visits have been made to farms with animals in the compulsory years. We have now slaughtered 15,000 animals in the UK—10 times the number that had been slaughtered when we came to office. This is good progress, but we need to do better still.

  We have looked at all our procedures to see what more can be done to speed up. We have recently reached agreement with the Commission that farmers can choose a valuer from a list of valuers drawn up by the Ministry where the valuation is for 10 or fewer animals. Up to now, many owners have opted to have two valuers, which has created problems in arranging valuations and thus slowed down progress with the cull. This new procedure is already being put into practice.

  Now that owners can choose the valuer, I do not consider it necessary to have two valuers for 10 or fewer animals. I therefore propose to amend the BSE Compensation Order 1996 so that the option of having two valuers for 10 animals or fewer is no longer available. We regard this as necessary, particularly to ensure that we make maximum progress with animals that have moved away from their herd of birth and will mainly be dealt with as single animals. Farming and valuers organisations will be consulted on the draft amendments to the order, which in the interests of making speedy progress on the cull I propose to lay and bring into force during the recess.

  It is in everyone' s interests for the cull to be completed as soon as possible. That is the Government's aim and we will continue to look for ways to make faster progress. I hope that farmers will work with the state veterinary service to get through this difficult task as quickly as we can.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the Intervention Board performed against its targets for 1996–97; and what key performance targets he has set the agency for 1997–98. [12075]
  325
  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Intervention Board's performance against its key targets in 1996–97 was as follows:

  Target (per cent.)

  Performance

  Percentage of claims processed within deadlines

  99.0

  85.0

  Percentage of claims processed correctly

  98.5

  199.5

  Cumulative running cost efficiency gains

  2.5

  5.3

  Improvement in index of productivity

  6.0

  3.0

  Ratio of disallowance to European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund funds handled

  0.40

  Not yet known

  To maintain expenditure within vote provision, cash and running cost limits

  —

  Met

  New value for money savings in procurement of goods and services

  6.0

  6.8

  Yield:cost ratio of anti-fraud activities

  3.0:1.0

  1.2:1.0

  1 Results for BSE-related schemes were based on a smaller sample of processed claims because monitoring on the same basis began later in the year.

  In agreement with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, I have set the following targets for 1997–98:

  Target (per cent.)

  Percentage of claims processed within deadlines

  99.0

  Percentage of claims processed correctly

  98.5

  Cumulative running cost efficiency gains

  2.5

  Improvement in index of productivity

  6.0

  Ration of disallowance to EAGGF funds handled

  0.40

  To maintain expenditure within vote provision, cash and running cost limits

  —

  New value for money savings in procurement of goods and services

  6.5

  Yield: cost ratio of anti-fraud activities

  3.0:1.0

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he took to consult interested parties prior to his announcement of a ban on higher dose vitamin B6 supplements. [10881]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on 29 July 1997,Official Report, columns 20–21.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to take to impose a ban on higher dose vitamin B6 supplements. [10882]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have no intention of imposing a ban on higher dose vitamin B6 products. It has accepted advice from the independent Food Advisory Committee that the level of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements sold under food law should be limited to a maximum of 10 mg per daily dose. This limit will be introduced by regulations under the Food Safety Act 1990. However, higher dose products licensed as 326
  medicines for the treatment of specific clinical conditions will continue to be available from pharmacies and on prescription.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which his Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all subcontractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10742]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department and its agencies are responsible for collating and processing payments to staff including basic pay, sick pay and payments for excess hours worked, and so on. The Department performs this function for staff in the core Department, the Pesticides Safety Directorate, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. The Department's other agencies—the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the Meat Hygiene Service, the Central Science Laboratory and the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency—are responsible for their own payroll functions.

  The Department and its agencies use the payroll services contractor, Chessington Computer Services Ltd., which is responsible for making the actual payments and issuing payment advice to staff.

  The Department and its agencies use the Chessington Computer Services management system known as SPIRE—standard payroll input and retrieval. In addition, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science operates a small payroll system for about 30 locally paid industrial staff. There were no extra costs associated with this system in 1996–97.

  The estimated total cost of the Department's, including agencies, payroll systems and processes in 1996–97 was £930,400. This figure does not include costs for the Fanning and Rural Conservation Agency, which was established on 1 April 1997.

  Gyrodactylus Salaris Parasite
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to prevent the spread of the parasite gyrodactylus salaris into United Kingdom rivers. [11474]

  Mr. Morley
  At the request of the United Kingdom, a safeguard measure was adopted last year by the European Commission prohibiting the import into the UK and Ireland of all live salmonids and requiring all imported salmonid eggs to be disinfected. Although the risk of introducing gyrodactylus salaris on angling equipment or clothing is very low, we also advise all those fishing abroad to ensure that any such equipment or clothing is either thoroughly dried or disinfected before, or on return to the UK.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has held with angling organisations regarding the possible spread of the parasite gyrodactylus salaris into United Kingdom rivers; and if he will make a statement. [11475]
  327
  Mr. Morley
  Officials are in regular contact with a range of fishery organisations, including those with angling interests, and both they or I would be willing to discuss the action that we are taking to prevent the introduction of gyrodactylus salaris into the UK.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has issued(a) generally, (b) to airports, port authorities and other points of entry to the United Kingdom and (c) to fishermen concerning the need to disinfect clothing and equipment when returning from abroad to prevent the spread of the parasite gyrodactylus salaris into United Kingdom rivers. [11476]

  Mr. Morley
  Advice is already contained in the Fisheries Department's booklet "Combating Fish Disease" which recommends all those fishing abroad to take precautions such as drying or disinfecting equipment to avoid the accidental spread of disease. Following the UK's success in achieving further EU safeguard measures to prevent the introduction of gyrodactylus salaris into the UK and Ireland, this advice is being reinforced by the issuing of specific leaflets.

  Intervention Beef
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of stewed beef are currently in intervention storage; what plans he has for their distribution to(a) recipients of benefits and (b) asylum seekers not in receipt of benefits; and if he will make a statement. [10725]

  align="center">1996 Arable Area Payments Scheme: payments made by MAFF, by county

  County

  Total cost (a) £

  Minimum payment (b)(i) £

  Average payment (b)(ii) £

  Maximum payment (b)(iii) £

  Avon

  4,709.856.56

  283.15

  11,774.64

  123,170.51

  Bedfordshire

  19,597,320.48

  320,25

  33,103.58

  553,660.21

  Berkshire

  12,175,769.66

  216,17

  45,602.13

  422,019.36

  Buckinghamshire

  17,752,348.30

  253.53

  27,480.42

  542,108.36

  Cambridgeshire

  60,589,535.85

  106.75

  28,472.53

  1,206,662.76

  Cheshire

  7,406,822.23

  242.85

  7,862.87

  368,547.02

  Cleveland

  5,355,734.45

  354.94

  25,026.80

  737,707.49

  Cornwall

  11,975,674.25

  88.60

  6,930.37

  224,672.76

  Cumbria

  4,652,279.00

  175,54

  4,949.23

  114,828.02

  Derbyshire

  10,983,321.95

  213.50

  12,812.35

  180,067.52

  Devonshire

  19,330,196.61

  57.47

  7,237.06

  251,981.94

  Dorset

  17,650,442.81

  287.16

  24,755.18

  407,217.76

  Durham

  13,680,648.94

  349.60

  20,728.26

  845,944.76

  Essex

  59,627,787.51

  221.50

  39,514.77

  1,518,787.76

  Gloucestershire

  26,186,904.07

  306.90

  26,748.63

  464,559.67

  Greater London

  1,446,717.13

  4,296.65

  46,820.22

  250,938.12

  Greater Manchester

  1,500,373.83

  277.55

  10,640.95

  86,408.78

  Hampshire

  34,666,737.76

  273.01

  43,993.32

  564,418.73

  Hereford and Worcester

  29,681,294.79

  76.86

  14,892.77

  314,987.48

  Hertfordshire

  21,368,780.29

  544.42

  44,518.29

  317,883.04

  Humberside

  61,095,190.71

  80.06

  29,557.42

  652,947.47

  Isle of Wight

  2,880.093.98

  405.65

  21,985.45

  196,540.39

  Kent

  36,860,055.84

  85.40

  35,038.08

  490,580.72

  Lancashire

  5,277,508.89

  266.87

  11,181.16

  163,051.01

  Leicestershire

  32,095,569.54

  314.91

  29,177.79

  2,016,524.30

  Lincolnshire

  103,734,277.51

  80.06

  30,790.82

  1,207,130.02

  Merseyside

  2,604,950.92

  621.81

  15,057.52

  100,668.33

  Norfolk

  66,168,770.11

  112.09

  23,023.23

  545,025.98

  Northamptonshire

  37,540,542.75

  400.31

  41,758.11

  585,034.06

  Northumberland

  28,953,072.17

  472.36

  34,426.96

  293,822.26

  Nottinghamshire

  29,431,424.01

  41.29

  29,285.00

  685,280.85

  328
  Mr. Rooker
  The EU surplus food scheme, as laid down by EU regulation 3149/92, as amended, allows member states to remove certain intervention stocks of produce from store and supply it to the poor and needy via charitable organisations. This year, the UK is withdrawing 5,000 tonnes of UK intervention beef from stock and arranging for it to be processed into canned stewed steak and distributed to more than 850 charities, local authorities and other non-profit-making organisations. Individuals eligible to receive the beef will each receive up to eight cans free or for a nominal charge.

  Asylum seekers do not qualify in their own right to receive the food made available under the scheme. This is because eligibility for produce under the scheme had to be limited. In the UK, we have decided, in consultation with the Department of Social Security, to limit the eligibility criteria to those in receipt of income support, family credit, jobseeker's allowance—income-based only—disability working allowance, to the homeless and destitute and to those living in welfare hostels. Asylum seekers falling into any of these eligible groups may receive food under the scheme.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each county(a) the total cost and (b) the (i) minimum, (ii) average and (iii) maximum payment made under the arable area payments scheme in 1996. [11319]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following table sets out figures for the total payments received by each claimant on a county basis. Payments are attributed to the county in which the claimant's main holding is situated.
  329

  align="center">1996 Arable Area Payments Scheme: payments made by MAFF, by county

  County

  Total cost (a) £

  Minimum payment (b)(i) £

  Average payment (b)(ii) £

  Maximum payment (b)(iii) £

  Oxfordshire

  38,316,438.90

  70.72

  41,512.93

  587,762.52

  Shropshire

  25,216,768,32

  163.86

  15,750.64

  781,745.97

  Somerset

  14,391,039.60

  276.74

  11,624.43

  175,407.28

  Staffordshire

  14,959,966.24

  335.73

  17,980.73

  282.582.13

  Suffolk

  56,350,015.14

  149.45

  26,923.08

  628,974.97

  Surrey

  4,218,972.44

  337.60

  20,381.51

  172,799.72

  Sussex, East

  9,598,132.74

  370.95

  21,472.33

  217,018.66

  Sessex, West

  15,019,621.67

  282.89

  30,281.50

  852,973.21

  Tyne and Wear

  2,911,625.25

  661,84

  26,469.32

  108,904,93

  Warwickshire

  24,313,437.54

  303.43

  27,660.34

  387,623.82

  West Midlands

  1,668,159.14

  320.25

  17,559.57

  208,962.74

  Wiltshire

  36,319,698.82

  242.85

  35,364.85

  364,971.01

  Yorkshire, North

  62,744,184.79

  424.33

  43,434.85

  838,677.97

  Yorkshire, South

  12,962,208.55

  250.99

  24,319.34

  230,836.52

  Yorkshire, West

  7,167,520.43

  277,55

  18,665.42

  28,972.16

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the brewing industry in respect of bootleg imports from EU member states; and what response he plans to make. [11491]

  Mr. Morley
  My ministerial colleagues and I have been fully briefed by industry representatives about the impact on brewing and pubs of cross-border shopping. The issues here are primarily for the Chancellor, who announced a review of these matters in the Budget speech.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 21 July,Official Report, column 448, if she will list the other equipment, including weapons systems, covered by the six other export licences granted in respect of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia on (a) 19 December 1995 and (b) 22 November 1996. [10447]

  Mrs. Roche
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library. Inquiries are being made as regards the release of the information under the non-statutory code of practice on access to Government information and, since confidential information is involved, the consent of the company is being sought for the disclosure of that information.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her current policy for licensing defence exports. [10641]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29, of the outcome of the review of the criteria used in considering applications for licences to export conventional arms.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many defence export licence applications were awaiting final Government approval on(a) 1 April, (b) 1 May, (c) 1 June and (d) 1 July. [10759]
  330
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The management data on the processing of licence applications by the Export Control Organisation are compiled on the basis of four-week periods rather than monthly, and by management unit rather than by the type of goods.

  Accordingly, I am not able to give the position on precisely these dates as regards applications for licences to export goods entered under part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994—commonly known as the military list. However, I can give the following information on applications for individual licences to export controlled strategic goods, including goods on the military list.

  Number of applications for individual export licence awaiting a decision

  Number

  5 April 1997

  1,702

  3 May 1997

  1,822

  31 May 1997

  1,844

  27 June 1997

  2,007

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences have been issued to Alvis since 1990 in respect of Indonesia, stating in each case the date of the licence and the type of equipment covered by it, including the numbers of each type. [10342]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library. Inquiries are being made as regards the release of the information under the non-statutory code of practice on access to government information and, since confidential information is involved, the consent of the company is being sought for the disclosure of that information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licence applications for arms and equipment exports to Indonesia are awaiting approval; if she will list the types of equipment and categories involved in the licence applications; and when she expects the decisions on the applications to be taken. [10575]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: At 24 July, a decision had not yet been reached on 59 applications for licences for the export of a wide range

  331
  of goods controlled under part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order. The time taken to reach a decision will vary from case to case, and will depend on the time required for consultation with other Departments.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the Government's policies regarding the use of solar photovoltaic technology; and if it is included in her Department's review of renewable energy policies. [11459]

  Mr. Battle
  Government support for solar photovoltaic technology will certainly form part of the review of policy on new and renewable energy. In the meantime, we will continue with the research, design and development work under the Department's new and renewable energy programme, which is assessing PV technology, for example by monitoring a number of large-scale installations, such as the Ford factory roof at Bridgend and the Doxford offices at Sunderland. We are also supporting the deployment of PV in 100 schools and colleges across the country through the £2.5 million foresight "SCOLAR" initiative.

  Business Links
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the(a) time scale and (b) cost of developing and Internet site for business links. [10586]

  Mrs. Roche
  The business link national Internet site was launched on 25 October 1996. The cost of the development of the site to the DTI will total £180,000 over a period of three years up until 13 October 1999.

  The Government are developing an Internet-based enterprise zone, which will provide small and medium firms with a one-stop access point to Internet sites which provide the most appropriate and authoritative business-related information and sources of further support to meet firms' needs, including the business link network. The Government will be providing up to £200,000 for initial development of the site funded from existing resources. On-going management and enhancement will be undertaken on a fully commercial basis and we expect to be able to launch the site in the autumn.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of funding provided by the Government for the business links network in 1996–97. [10633]

  Mrs. Roche
  The total amount of funding provided to the business link network in 1996–97 was £114.6 million. This comprised £41.1 million for business link development and £73.5 million for the delivery of business link services.

  British Citizens Working Abroad
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regulations exist to ensure good practice by international recruitment agencies placing British citizens in jobs overseas; and what remedies are what remedies are available to 332
  British citizens recruited in this way in the event of breach of contract or wrongful dismissal by the employers. [11209]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Agencies operating within England, Scotland and Wales are governed by the Employment Agencies Act 1973. The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 1976 in particular impose responsibilities on agencies that place workers aborad. Similar legislation applies in Northern Ireland.

  In the event of breach of contract by an overseas employer, including wrongful dismissal, remedies may be provided by local law. Contractual rights may also be enforceable in the UK courts, particularly if the contract was made under English law.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards exist to ensure fair treatment of British citizens recruited in the United Kingdom to work abroad by foreign-owned companies. [11208]

  Mr. McCartney
  Employment protection legislation generally applies to employees who ordinarily work in the UK, although some provisions have wider application. Employees covered by this legislation are therefore able to pursue their statutory rights in British courts or industrial tribunals. Employees who ordinarily work outside the UK must generally look to the law and legal system of the country in which they work for protection.

  Trade Associations
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of trade associations participating in the latest benchmarking exercise had established national vocational qualifications for their sector; and of those which had not, what percentage were in the process of establishing national vocational qualifications. [11399]

  Mr. Battle
  I regret that this precise information is not available. However, the benchmarking exercise showed that nearly half, 48 per cent., of the participants determined the skills requirements of their sector, and over three quarters, 77 per cent., worked with the relevant organisations to ensure training needs are met.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentages of all trade associations are classified as(a) small, (b) medium and (c) large by the breakdown of subscription income used in the recent trade associations benchmarking exercise. [11398]

  Mr. Battle
  The information is as follows:

  Size of association

  Subscription income

  Percentage of sample

  Small

  £1–£200,000

  24

  Medium

  £200,000–£1 million

  46

  Large

  £1 million+

  30

  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons a copy of "The Trade Associations' Performance", a report of a benchmarking exercise of trade associations published in May, has not been placed in the Library. [11397]
  333
  Mr. Battle
  I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library today.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many trade associations refused to take part in the recent benchmarking exercise of trade associations' performance. [11396]

  Mr. Battle
  The Association of British Insurers, which managed the exercise on behalf of DTI, wrote to all UK trade associations on its database inviting them to take part. In the event, 135 elected to do so. The total number approached is not immediately available.

  International Airport, Gaza
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what facilities and advice are available to United Kingdom companies wishing to participate in the development of the Palestinian international airport at Gaza. [11290]

  Mrs. Roche
  The development phase, including the provision of equipment, of the airport is now complete, but the commercial section of the British consulate-general at Jerusalem and the country desk in the DTI are available to offer detailed advice as further opportunities arise.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1992–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and whether he will make a statement. [11376]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: A programme of projects and other activities are running within the core DTI which aims to resolve the problems facing its IT systems as a result of the year 2000 date change. The following sums from departmental budgets have been approved to meet the cost of this programme:

  1997–98: £1,460,000

  1998–99: £986,000

  1999–2000: £254,000.

  The sum approved for 1999–2000 relates to monitoring activities necessary after the completion of remedial work in April 1999.

  The Department's next step agencies have programmes of their own which they are funding.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–2000; and if she will make a statement. [11379]

  Mr. Griffiths
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: Total estimated expenditure on computer-related work for the years in question by the core DTI, excluding next steps agencies, is as follows:

  align="right">£000

  Capital

  Current

  Total

  1995–96

  16,269

  11,222

  27,491

  1996–97

  15,789

  13,032

  28,821

  1997–98

  12,268

  13,562

  25,830

  334

  align="right">£000

  Capital

  Current

  Total

  1998–99

  11,777

  11,687

  23,464

  1999–2000

  11,703

  11,687

  23,390

  Figures for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are forecasts, as allocations for these years have not yet been agreed.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make it her policy to require the inclusion of the insurer responsible for employers' liability insurance in each company's annual report; and if she will make a statement. [10523]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am aware of concern about employees unable to trace the insurer responsible for employer's liability insurance where a company has gone into liquidation. We are taking forward work on possible options for dealing with this problem as part of our current review of employers' liability legislation. The solution suggested is one of those under consideration. The Law Commission is also considering third party rights against insurers where the insured has become insolvent and will be issuing a consultation document in the autumn.

  Energy Taxation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Minister will handle European negotiations over common energy taxation. [10459]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: I have been asked to reply.

  The lead rests with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

WALES

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department. [11556]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Waste reduction is already an established and important aspect of my Department's strategy to enhance its environmental performance.

  Annual Welsh Office green housekeeping action plans feature various schemes and initiatives which are improving efficiency and reducing adverse environmental effects. In particular, substantial quantities of waste paper, aluminium cans, toner cartridges, plastics, old wooden pallets and polythene packaging are being recycled.

  The Welsh Office is committed to making its waste work and looking to do even better in future. Welsh Office staff are regularly encouraged to improve performance in this area, including the minimisation of waste at source.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years. [11558]
  335
  Mr. Davies
  Waste paper recycling was introduced in the Welsh Office at the end of 1992. The quantities of paper recycled by my Department in each of the four years since are:

  1993–94: 37,900 kg

  1994–95: 24,640 kg

  1995–96: 104,380 kg

  1996–97: 104,800 kg

  Expectations for the current financial year are higher and a target of 140,000 kg has been set.

  Information relating to the proportion of waste paper recycled is not held centrally.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within his Department. [11557]

  Mr. Davies
  My Department has a range of targets in place aimed at reducing the amount of waste it sends to landfill. This year, the Welsh Office aims to recycle 140,000 kg of waste paper, 7,500 aluminium cans and 600 printer toner cartridges. Old wooden pallets and polythene packaging, which have previously gone to landfill are now sent for recycling. More recently, the Welsh Office has introduced a new scheme for the collection of plastic cups, which is directing around 25,000 of these items away from landfill each months.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many payments were made under the arable area payment scheme in 1996(a) £0 to £1,000, (b) £1,000 to £2,000, (c) £2,000 to £3,000, (d) £3,000 to £4,000, (e) £4,000 to £5,000, (f) £5,000 to £10,000, (g) £10,000 to £20,000, (h) £20,000 to £50,000, (i) £50,000 to £100,000 and (j) over £100,000. [11316]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  During 1996–97, the Welsh Office made arable area payments to 2,359 farmers, with the payments breaking down as follows:

  (a) £0 to £1,000 = 453

  (b) £1,000 to £2,000 = 504

  (c) £2,000 to £3,000 = 334

  (d) £3,000 to £4,000 = 299

  (e) £4,000 to £5,000 = 387

  (f) £5,000 to £10,000 = 95

  (g) £10,000 to £20,000 = 171

  (h) £20,000 to £50,000 = 101

  (i) £50,000 to £100,000 = 11

  (j) over £100,000 = 4.

  Public Health Initiative
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the public health initiatives planned by his Department in(a) Clwyd, South and (b) Wales. [10955]
  336
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Initiatives specific to the Clwyd, South area will be a matter for North Wales health authority.

  At the all-Wales level, there are many public health initiatives under way, and proposed, to prevent ill health. Primary prevention initiatives including the Welsh child health surveillance programmes, for example, play a vital role in monitoring the health and development of children. The childhood vaccination and immunisation programme represents one of the most effective public health interventions currently available. At very little cost, lifelong protection can be provided against infectious diseases—the health burdens of which can be enormous.

  Public education campaigns are under way, including national campaigns dealing with a full range of public health issues such as smoking, diet, physical activity, substance misuse and healthy sexual behaviour. In particular, the "Back to sleep" campaign aimed at reducing the number of cot deaths has been very successful.

  A wide range of legislation is in place to control the incidence of food-borne diseases and the Government are committed to protecting the public health through additional measures to ensure the safety of food, including the establishment of a food standards agency. Specific research initiatives under way including all-Wales projects aimed at reducing the number of cases of food poisoning and levels of infections acquired during hospital stays, are progressing well.

  Secondary prevention measures including the early detection of breast and cervical cancers, for example, through screening programmes available in Wales, have significantly improved chances of survival from these diseases.

  In my statement on 7 July, I made reference to the progress made with the 1989 strategic intent and direction for the NHS in Wales and the Welsh health survey in 1995. Subsequently, a streamlined set of health targets were announced by the Secretary of State for Wales on 10 June. These include prevention initiatives to reduce deaths from cancer of the lung, breast and cervix. Other target areas include coronary heart disease and stroke. We have also asked health authorities to draw up plans to reduce accident and suicide rates and to work to improve the quality of life of patients with a number of painful conditions.

  All these initiatives, both existing and proposed, will continue to be afforded a high priority to provide the greatest possible health benefits for the people of Wales and ensure that health strategies address the adverse effects on health of social, economic and environmental factors.

  Education Revenue Accounts
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will rank Welsh education authorities in order of percentage share of budget devoted to education revenue accounts for each of the last five years. [10750]
  337
  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Revenue expenditure as a percentage of total authority expenditure on education (ranked)1

  Per cent.

  1992–93 outturn

  Gwynedd

  97.0

  Mid Glamorgan

  97.0

  Clwyd

  96.0

  Dyfed

  96.0

  West Glamorgan

  96.0

  Gwent

  95.0

  South Glamorgan

  94.0

  Powys

  91.0

  1993–94 outturn

  Mid Glamorgan

  98.0

  Gwynedd

  98.0

  Dyfed

  97.0

  Gwent

  97.0

  West Glamorgan

  97.0

  South Glamorgan

  95.0

  Clwyd

  95.0

  Powys

  93.0

  1994–95 outturn

  Gwynedd

  98.0

  Mid Glamorgan

  97.0

  Gwent

  97.0

  Dyfed

  96.0

  West Glamorgan

  95.0

  Clwyd

  95.0

  Powys

  95.0

  South Glamorgan

  93.0

  1995–96 budgets

  Gwynedd

  97.0

  Gwent

  97.0

  Dyfed

  96.0

  Mid Glamorgan

  96.0

  Powys

  95.0

  Clwyd

  93.0

  South Glamorgan

  93.0

  West Glamorgan

  92.0

  1996–97 budgets

  Blaenau Gwent

  99.7

  Gwynedd

  98.0

  Cardiganshire

  98.0

  Isle of Anglesey

  98.0

  Wrexham

  98.0

  Monmouthshire

  98.0

  Swansea

  97.0

  Denbighshire

  97.0

  Torfaen

  97.0

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  97.0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  96.0

  Pembrokeshire

  96.0

  Caerphilly

  95.0

  Newport

  95.0

  Bridgend

  95.0

  align="center">Rural Wales SPD 1994–99—EAGGF approvals to date

  EAGGF grant approved £

  Sponsor

  Development of Agriculture and Forestry

  Agri-tourism

  Countryside enhancement

  Total

  ADAS

  482,500

  —

  243,500

  726,000

  AnturTeifi

  115,861

  —

  —

  115,861

  Antur Waunfawr

  —

  —

  8,250

  8,250

  ATB Landbase

  423,064

  —

  —

  423,064

  338

  Revenue expenditure as a percentage of total local authority expenditure on education (ranked)1

  Per cent.

  Powys

  95.0

  Conwy

  95.0

  Carmarthenshire

  94.0

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  93.0

  Cardiff

  93.0

  Flintshire

  92.0

  Neath Port Talbot

  92.0

  1 Higher and further education colleges transferred out of the local authority sector on 1 April 1992 and 1 April 1993 respectively and this may affect patterns of expenditure before and after these dates.

  Contaminated Land
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to lay new regulations under the Environment Act 1995 concerning contaminated land in Wales. [10446]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  We hope to make an announcement shortly of how we propose to proceed with the implementation of the contaminated land provisions in part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995.

  Gwent Tertiary College
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by whom Mr. Cyril Lewis was appointed to carry out the investigation of Gwent tertiary college; what the terms of reference were for his investigation; how long Mr. Cyril Lewis's appointment is for; how much he is being paid; and what companies or individuals are being used as consultants in the investigation. [10328]

  Mr. Hain
  Mr. Cyril Lewis was appointed by the governors of Gwent tertiary college further education corporation to carry out the investigation of the college. The investigation's terms of reference, and Mr. Lewis's employment conditions are matters for the governors, who have also appointed Ernst and Young as financial consultants.

  EAGGF
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total sum allocated to Wales under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for the last complete year for which figures are available, indicating how the fund was distributed; and what amount was given to each applicant. [10493]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Details on EAGGF approvals to date under the rural Wales objective 5(b) programme, 1994 to 1999, and the Leader II programme, 1995 to 1999, by sponsor and measure is provided as follows. It is not practicable to provide information for a particular year.
  339

  align="center">Rural Wales SPD 1994–99—EAGGF approvals to date

  EAGGF grant approved £

  Sponsor

  Development of Agriculture and Forestry

  Agri-tourism

  Countryside enhancement

  Total

  Brecon Beacons National Park

  15,000

  —

  161,450

  176,450

  British Waterways

  —

  —

  45,422

  45,422

  CCTA

  909,145

  —

  —

  909,145

  CCW

  73,250

  —

  1,089,375

  1,162,625

  Ceredigion County Council

  284,000

  —

  —

  284,000

  Coed Cymru

  790,500

  —

  —

  790,500

  Coleg Meirion Dwyfor

  301,314

  —

  —

  301,314

  Coleg Powys

  46,724

  —

  79,175

  125,899

  Cymad

  20,550

  35,000

  —

  55,550

  DBRW

  275,100

  —

  —

  275,100

  Dyfed Wildlife Trust

  238,060

  —

  —

  238,060

  ECL

  3,000

  —

  —

  3,000

  FCA Limited

  36,848

  —

  —

  36,848

  Games Conservancy Trust

  156,000

  —

  —

  156,000

  Glasfryn Forestry and Fencing

  35,121

  —

  —

  35,121

  Glynllifon Border Leic. Breed Group

  48,815

  —

  —

  48,815

  Groundwork Merthyr and Cynon

  —

  156,000

  —

  156,000

  Gwynedd County Council

  91,074

  10,000

  3,500

  104,574

  Gwynedd Training

  30,823

  —

  —

  30,823

  Llangorse Riding Centre

  —

  299,928

  —

  299,928

  Llysfasi College

  592,000

  —

  122,688

  714,688

  Menter A Busnes

  745,426

  —

  —

  745,426

  Mentor Mon

  54,000

  —

  —

  54,000

  Mr. J. C. Williams Ellis

  —

  25,000

  —

  25,000

  National Trust

  174,215

  —

  135,065

  309,280

  Pembroke Machinery Ring

  100,500

  —

  —

  100,500

  Pembrokeshire Business Initiative

  141,000

  —

  —

  141,000

  Pembrokeshire Coast National Park

  —

  15,000

  —

  15,000

  Pembrokeshire College

  —

  —

  104,878

  104,878

  Powys County Council

  —

  61,500

  —

  61,500

  Powys Rural Training Partnership

  118,200

  —

  —

  118,200

  Primestock Products Cymru

  76,350

  —

  —

  76,350

  RSPB

  —

  —

  402,178

  402,178

  Shared Earth Trust

  —

  —

  104,651

  104,651

  Snowdonia National Park

  —

  —

  599,500

  599,500

  Snowdonia Woodland Trust

  —

  —

  99,904

  99,904

  SPARC

  147,630

  —

  —

  147,630

  Wales Young Farmers Club

  33,200

  —

  37,150

  70,350

  Welsh Black Cattle Society

  245,312

  —

  —

  245,312

  WFPL

  497,080

  —

  —

  497,080

  WTB

  —

  425,000

  —

  425,000

  Total

  7,301.662

  1,027,428

  3,236,686

  11,565,776

  align="center">Leader II Programme 1995–99—EAGGF approvals to date

  EAGGF grant approved £

  Sponsor

  Acquisition of skills

  Rural development programme

  Transnational activities

  Total

  ACT

  8,172

  15,421

  —

  23,593

  Antur Teifi

  —

  160,050

  33,044

  193,094

  Cadwyn

  3,583

  41,167

  —

  44,750

  Cymad

  —

  75,500

  —

  75,500

  Menter Mon

  8,750

  118,850

  —

  127,600

  Menter Powys

  2,500

  197,400

  8,000

  207,900

  Menter Preseli

  20,080

  72,263

  720

  93,063

  SPARC

  —

  —

  2,082

  2,082

  Total

  43,085

  680,651

  43,846

  767,582

TREASURY

  Long-term Care Insurance
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to regulate the marketing of long-term care insurance. [12080]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In December 1996, my predecessor issued a consultation document on proposals to regulate the marketing of long-term care insurance under the Financial Services Act 1986. These proposals were designed to complement proposals by the then Secretary of State for Health set out in his document "A new partnership for care in old age".

  The Government do not intend to implement the previous Government's draft Bill on a partnership scheme. We feel that this was only a partial solution designed to help a relatively small number of people and that what is needed is a more fundamental and wide-ranging review of all the options.

  In view of this, the Government intend, as set out in their manifesto, to examine provisions for long-term care for the elderly. The Government will make a further announcement on this once the form and content of that examination have been settled.

  These policy developments have important implications for the balance of argument for and against early action to regulate the marketing of long-term care insurance. The broader policy debate is likely to have fundamental implications for the future of this market and for its regulation. It is my decision, therefore, that it would be premature to proceed now to amend the scope of the Financial Services Act 1986. Once the broader policy debate has been taken forward, I shall consider carefully the implications for the regulation of marketing of long-term care insurance.

  In the interim, I shall of course monitor the market closely for evidence of significant risks to consumers and will take appropriate action if that is warranted.

  Office for National Statistics
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Office for National Statistics performed against its key targets in 1996–97. [10385]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Office for National Statistics' performance for 1996–97 is described in the agency's annual report and accounts, which is being laid before the House and published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The ONS achieved eight out of its nine key targets, with the ninth, relating to release of publications in accordance with its publications plan, being partially achieved. Targets for 1997–98 and ONS's business strategy are set out in the "ONS Business Plan 1997–2000", which was published in March. Together, these will ensure continuing improvements in its performance in 1997–98.

  Ministry of Defence Budget
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the purchasing power of the Ministry of Defence budget for the next three years resulting from his revised estimates of inflation. [7567]
  342
  Mr. Darling
  The comprehensive spending review, which was announced on 11 June, is addressing priorities across all Government expenditure both in the medium term and long term. The strategic defence review, which was announced on 28 May, will be integrated with the wider comprehensive spending review.

  EMU Information Campaign
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will request EU funding to finance his information campaign on economic and monetary union. [10952]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are considering whether to request European Community funding to help finance the task of informing UK businesses about the practical implications of economic and monetary union which would arise whether or not the UK joins the single currency.

  Oil Seed Rape Fuel
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages of reducing the excise duty on fuel made from oil seed rape; and what representations he has received on this subject. [10491]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have made no such assessment.

  I have received one representation on this subject.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will change the rules governing PEPs to allow PEP holders who have investments in unlisted securities market companies which migrated to the alternative investment market—AIM—following the closure of the unlisted securities market to continue to hold these investments in their PEP. [10367]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No. AIM shares may qualify for the tax reliefs available for investment in unlisted companies.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many registered voters in Scotland presently pay income tax at the standard rate or above; [10127]

  (2) how many registered voters in Scotland do not pay income tax at the standard rate or above. [10126]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to identify which taxpayers are registered to vote.

  General Government Expenditure
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the reduction in real general Government expenditure in 1997–98 and 1998–99 consequential on the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" projected increase in the gross domestic product deflator. [8140]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: In the last Budget, general Government expenditure increased in

  343
  cash terms by £0.4 billion in 1997–98 and by £4.1 billion in 1998–99 compared with the projections in the 1996 Budget. In 1995–96 prices, using the latest GDP deflator forecasts, there was a real reduction of £2.6 billion in 1997–98 and £1.5 billion in 1998–99.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the legal base for use of qualified majority voting in the creation of an action programme for the enhancement of administrative co-operation between the indirect tax authorities in the European Community, as detailed in COM (97) 175; and what representation he has made in respect of its use in this respect. [10200]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: The European Commission has proposed that the legal base for this action programme—the FISCALIS programme—should be article 100a of the treaty establishing the European Community, so making it a matter for co-decision with the European Parliament and qualified majority voting in the Council.

  The UK remains firmly committed to unanimity as the basis for Community-level decision making on all substantive tax matters.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government would be prepared to join the economic and monetary union at the presently prevailing value of the pound; and if he will make a statement. [11336]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: It would be premature to speculate on an appropriate rate for joining EMU. The Chancellor does not propose to make a statement.

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe is able to handle matters relating to tax. [10426]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe has a project-based portfolio in the Treasury which may include some tax issues. However, arrangements are in place to ensure that the Minister is not involved in issues that could give rise to conflicts of interest.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people receiving tax relief for private medical insurance who will not renew their current policies as a result of the Budget measure to terminate such tax relief. [10305]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: No firm estimates are available of the number of people receiving tax relief who will not renew their current policies as a result of the Budget measure.

  Value Added Tax (Businesses)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many VAT-registrable businesses there were in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979. [10838]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Customs does not hold information on the number of VAT-registrable businesses in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979. However, the number of businesses actually registered for VAT in the UK in each financial year since 1983 was as follows:

  Financial year

  Registered businesses

  1983–84

  1,433,100

  1984–85

  1,458,900

  1985–86

  1,477,400

  1986–87

  1,505,500

  1987–88

  1,554,000

  1988–89

  1,623,866

  1989–90

  1,710,106

  1990–91

  1,745,097

  1991–92

  1,677,829

  1992–93

  1,632,013

  1993–94

  1,593,770

  1994–95

  1,579,869

  1995–96

  1,573,620

  1996–97

  1,595,271

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total net external financing limit at current prices of Britain's nationalised industries in each year since 1974. [10919]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: External financing limits were introduced in 1976. Outturn performance against an EFL is recorded as the external financing requirement. The total EFR for the nationalised industries in each year since 1976–77 in current prices is provided in the table.

  Total external financing requirements of nationalised industries in 1996–97 prices

  £ billion

  1976–77

  8.71

  1977–78

  4.84

  1978–79

  7.07

  1977–80

  6.89

  1980–81

  6.48

  1981–82

  4.61

  1982–83

  4.06

  1983–84

  4.12

  1984–85

  6.73

  1985–86

  2.78

  1986–87

  0.55

  1987–88

  0.29

  1988–89

  -0.64

  1989–90

  1.23

  1990–91

  4.22

  1991–92

  4.33

  1992–93

  4.83

  1993–94

  3.86

  1994–95

  1.05

  345

  Total external financing requirements of nationalized industries in 1996–97 prices

  £ billion

  1995–96

  -0.36

  1996–97

  0.48

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what subsidy was paid to each of the nationalised industries between 1974 and their year of privatisation. [11344]

  Mr. Robinson
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The external financing requirement of a nationalised industry has been used since its introduction in 1976 as the consistent measure of financial support an industry requires to supplement income from its trading activities. The EFR is a measure of the cash needed by the industry to fund investment and meet costs not covered by revenue. As such, it is only an indirect measure of subsidy. Information presented on this basis has been available since 19767–97. Table 3.11 of the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1997–98", Cm 3601, lists EFRs from 1978–79 and 1982–83 onwards. The EFRs for key nationalised industries from 1976–77, unless otherwise indicated, to privatisation are as follows:

  £ billion

  British Coal

  16.2

  British Gas

  1-3.6

  BNOC

  0

  British Steel

  6.0

  British Airways

  0

  British Rail

  11.1

  British Shipbuilders

  1.3

  British Telecommunications from 1981–82

  1-1.0

  Electricity, England, Wales and Scotland

  1-3.8

  Water, from 1978–79

  2.2

  1 A negative EFR represents a net benefit to the public finances.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average level of public sector debt as a percentage of gross domestic product in(a) 1974–75 to 1978–79 and (b) 1979–80 to 1996–97. [10883]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The average level of net public sector debt from 1974–75 to 1978–79 was 55 per cent. of gross domestic product. The average from 1979–80 to 1996–97 was 40 per cent. of GDP.

  Business Taxes
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the percentage of gross domestic product constituted by business taxes for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) Italy in each year since 1974–75. [10894]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  align="center">Taxes on business as a percentage of GDP

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  United Kingdom

  8.5

  9.9

  10.3

  9.7

  9.3

  8.6

  8.0

  8.0

  Germany

  9.2

  9.9

  10.1

  9.4

  9.8

  9.7

  9.6

  9.5

  346

  align="center">Taxes on business as a percentage of GDP

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  France

  14.8

  16.4

  17.3

  17.0

  16.9

  16.8

  16.8

  16.8

  Italy

  11.3

  11.1

  11.9

  13.3

  13.1

  13.8

  13.6

  12.8

  Notes:

  (1) Taxes on business include corporate taxes, employers social security contributions, taxes on payroll, taxes on property and other taxes.

  (2) Prior to 1990 data available on a five-year basis.

  Source:

  Revenue Statistics, 1965–1995, OECD (1996 Edition).

  Computers (Century Data Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 July,Official Report, column 590, on the year 2000 problem, what estimate he has made of the cost in respect of computer systems in non-governmental public bodies and other government bodies for which Government Departments have responsibility; and if he will make a statement. [11369]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 July]: The fully costed plans that Government Departments are producing by October 1997 will include any areas of the wider public service, including non-departmental public bodies and other Government bodies for which Ministers have sponsorship responsibilities.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policy action he is considering to avoid demutualisation of building societies adding to consumer demand in 1997–98 and 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [11337]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: We have received a number of representations suggesting steps that the Government might take to deter further demutualisations of building societies. The Government are committed to the benefits of the mutual building society and the opportunities for choice for the consumer. However, a number of UK representatives raise difficult issues of principle because they could frustrate the will of the members, or significantly reduce the board's accountability to them. Nevertheless, we are keeping the situation under review.

  Contingency Reserve
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when(a) initial and (b) final decisions will be taken on the allocation of the contingency reserve for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [11342]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: Decisions on the allocation of the reserve for any particular year are taken in the course of that year as the circumstances requiring use of such funds arise.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of the contingency reserve set in each Budget since 1980 for the succeeding financial year
  347
  (a) in nominal terms and (b) as a percentage of total general Government expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [11371]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The figures are given in nominal terms in the table. The coverage of the reserve has varied with the definition of the control aggregate. For example, in 1990–91, the planning total was redefined to exclude self-financed expenditure by local authorities. In 1993–94, this was in turn replaced by the control total, which included all local authority expenditure but excluded cyclical social security spending and privatisation proceeds.

  Year

  Reserve (£ billion)

  As percentage of GGE

  1981–82

  1.6

  1.3

  1982–83

  1.7

  1.3

  1983–84

  1.5

  1.1

  1984–85

  3.0

  2.0

  1985–86

  3.0

  1.9

  1986–87

  4.5

  2.7

  1987–88

  3.5

  2.0

  1988–89

  3.5

  2.0

  1989–90

  3.5

  1.7

  1990–91

  3.0

  1.4

  1991–92

  3.5

  1.5

  1992–93

  4.0

  1.5

  1993–94

  4.0

  1.5

  1994–95

  3.5

  1.2

  1995–96

  3.0

  1.0

  1996–97

  2.5

  0.8

  1997–98

  2.5

  0.8

  1998–99

  2.8

  0.9

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present size of the contingency reserve for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–00, what allocations out of these reserves have so far been approved, and if he will make a statement. [11341]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The reserve announced in November 1996 for 1997–98 was £2.5 billion. The main estimates included allocations of £200 million from the reserve to Departments and the summer supplementary estimates included allocations of a further £52 million. The reserve for 1998–99 will be £2.8 billion, reflecting the Chancellor's decision to allocate an extra £1 billion to schools and £1.2 billion for the NHS from the £5 billion reserve set in the November 1996 Budget. The reserve for 1999–00 was set at £7.5 billion in the November 1996 Budget, but the size of the control total and the reserve will be decided as part of the comprehensive spending revenue now underway.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–00; and if he will make a statement. [11368]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The estimated expenditure, for the years required, on
  348
  computer-related current and capital work, including the salaries of specialist staff, is as follows:

  align="right">£000

  Current

  Capital

  Total

  1995–96

  3,130

  4,995

  8,125

  1996–97

  2,812

  3,833

  6,645

  1997–98

  4,538

  2,200

  6,738

  1998–99

  2,528

  1,901

  4,429

  1999–00

  2,484

  2,088

  4,572

  Inflation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the merits of targeting inflation on the RPIY basis instead of on the RPIX basis; and if he will make a statement. [11373]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: RPIX inflation is now a well-understood and accepted measure, RPIY has the property of excluding indirect taxes, which is useful for some purposes, but it does not measure prices actually paid in the shops and it does not measure what inflation would be in the absence of indirect tax changes. It is also less widely used and less well understood. On balance therefore, the Government decided that RPIX was the better target, but the Bank of England will continue to monitor RPIY in its "Inflation Report".

  Road Haulage Industry
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the tax concession and subsidies from public funds available to the road haulage industry; [11115]

  (2) if he will estimate the net subsidy from public funds to the road haulage industry in the last year for which figures are available. [11116]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: None. Neither subsidies not tax concessions are available to the road haulage industry.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the advantage of waiving air passenger duty on domestic flights to Northern Ireland and offshore islands. [10803]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: It would be illegal, under EU law, to waive air passenger duty on domestic flights to Northern Ireland and offshore islands.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total amount collected in the last financial year from air passenger duty; and how much was collected from(a) domestic scheduled services, (b) international scheduled services and (c) charter services. [10802]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The total revenue collected for air passenger duty in the last financial year–1996–97—was £356 million. We do not have information on revenue from scheduled, international and charter services separately.

  Earnings
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the take-home pay at current prices of a married couple with two children with the husband on national average male earnings in(a) 1978–79, (b) 1996–97 and (c) estimated for 1997–98. [10893]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Estimates are given in the table.

  align="center">Take-home pay for a one earner married couple with two children under 111

  £ per week

  1978–79

  73.45

  1996–97

  312.30

  1997–98

  328.80

  1 Assuming full-time male average earnings, on adult rates for all occupations. Take-home pay is net of child benefit.

  Shareholders
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the number of individuals owning shares in each year since 1979. [10885]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the then Central Statistical Office, now the Office for National Statistics, report on share ownership at 31 December 1994 published by HMSO and available from the Library of the House.

  VAT (Auctions)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what powers the European Commission intends to take the United Kingdom to court over VAT on auctioneers' fees; [11308]

  (2) on what date he was notified of the intention of the EU Commission to initiative proceedings against the United Kingdom on VAT on auctions of art, antiques and other items sold at auctions. [11307]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The EC Commission announced its decision to initiate the first formal stage of proceedings in a press release issued on 24 July.

  If the EC Commission eventually decides to take the matter to the European Court of Justice, it would do no so under article 169 of the EC treaty.

  Excise Duty (Beer)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the excise duty on beer as a proportion of the price of beer in each year from 1974–75 to 1997–98. [11259]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The table following shows excise duty as a percentage of the price of a pint of bitter in licensed premises, for years up to 1997.

  A forecast for 1998 is not available.
  350

  Years

  Duty as percentage of price

  1974–75

  28.1

  1975–76

  26.2

  1976–77

  25.0

  1977–78

  23.1

  1978–79

  20.8

  1979–80

  20.7

  1980–81

  24.7

  1981–82

  25.1

  1982–83

  24.8

  1983–84

  23.3

  1984–85

  23.2

  1985–86

  22.1

  1986–87

  21.3

  1987–88

  20.8

  1988–89

  19.5

  1989–90

  18.9

  1990–91

  18.1

  1991–92

  17.7

  1992–93

  17.6

  1993–94

  16.2

  1994–95

  16.1

  1995–96

  15.6

  1996–97

  15.1

  The figures relate to April/May for years up to and including 1993 other than 1979, where the July price has been used. From 1994, the percentage relate to January each year.

  Carbon Tax (Aviation Fuel)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to introduce a carbon tax on aviation fuel. [10801]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: I have no such proposals to make at present.

  GDP Growth
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average rate of annual gross domestic product growth in each member of the G7 group of nations over(a) 1974 to 1979, (b) 1979 to 1996, (c) 1975 to 1981, (d) 1981 to 1992 and (e) 1992 to 1996. [10886]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Philip Hammond, dated 30 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on average rates of annual growth in gross domestic product (GDP) in each member of the G7 group of nations.
  The Office for National Statistics only collects information on UK GDP.
  As regards each member of the G7 group of nations such information as is available is published in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development publication National Accounts, detailed tables, volume 1, 1997 edition, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Part five of this publication contains GDP volume growth tables, by country, for a run of years.

  Abortions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many abortions were performed and what
  351
  was the abortion rate by age group for each year since 1990. [11328]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 30 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent parliamentary question on the number of abortions since 1990.
  The information for England and Wales residents is available in the OPCS/ONS Abortion Statistics publication, Series AB Nos. 17–22, 1990–95. Similar information for 1996 is published in the ONS Monitor Series AB 97/4, Legal abortions in England and Wales 1996. These publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

DEFENCE

  Hunting
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will announce which officials will conduct the review of hunting on Ministry of Defence land; [7917]

  (2) when he will announce who will give evidence to those conducting the reviews (a) of hunting on MOD land and (b) of hunting on Forestry Commission land. [7865]

  Mr. Spellar
  The investigation into hunting with hounds on Ministry of Defence land, and the consequences of stopping such hunting, is being carried out by officials in the Defence Estate Organisation. This is an internal review which will take into account those representations received from all interested parties.

  The review of hunting on Forestry Commission land is a matter for the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which officials will be involved in the review of hunting on his Department's land; [8847]

  (2) who will be invited to give evidence to his review of hunting on his Department's land. [8846]

  (3) when he expects to publish the conclusions and evidence of the review of hunting on Ministry of Defence land. [8840]

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the review of hunting on his Department's land will be completed; what is the composition of the body undertaking it; and what are its terms of reference. [8728]

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) who will give evidence to the review of hunting on his Department's land; [10286]

  (2) which officials will carry out the review of hunting on his Department's land; [10283]

  (3) what factors led him to conduct a review of hunting on his Department's land. [10285]
  352
  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave today to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received from(a) supporters and (b) opponents of hunting on the subject of hunting on Ministry of Defence land; and if he will list them. [8839]

  Mr. Spellar
  A substantial number of representations has been received both from supporters and from opponents of hunting on Ministry of Defence land. In the absence of their permission to do so, I do not propose to list the names of those individuals who have made such representations.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much he estimates the review of hunting on Ministry of Defence land will cost his Department. [8845]

  Mr. Spellar
  The review of hunting on Ministry of Defence land and the consequences of stopping such hunting is being conducted by MOD officials as a part of their continuing duties.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations he has received from farmers with land adjoining Ministry of Defence land concerning co-operation agreements if hunting is banned; [8841]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential impact on the armed services if co-operation agreements with farmers of land adjoining Ministry of Defence land were withdrawn following the banning of hunting. [8842]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have received a number of representations from those with land adjoining or near Ministry of Defence land, concerning continued co-operation with the Military if a decision were taken not to renew licences for fox hunting with hounds on Ministry of Defence land.

  We greatly value the excellent relations the armed forces have with landowners throughout the country, and are assessing these responses as part of the review currently being conducted.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons a review of hunting on his Department's land has been commenced; and when it will be conducted. [8844]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government came into power with a commitment to allow a free parliamentary vote on hunting with hounds. Against this background, we wish to ascertain the extent to which Ministry of Defence land is used for hunting and what the consequences would be of ending such use. This investigation is not yet complete, but taking full and proper account of the legal issues involved and the fact that it would be wrong to anticipate the outcome of the parliamentary process, the current situation will be allowed to continue. Licences for fox hunting on Ministry of Defence land for the 1997–98 hunting season will be renewed on application. These will be limited to hunts which have traditionally held such
  353
  licences and the scope and area covered by the licences will not be extended. These licences will contain a termination clause on one month's notice.

  Defence Companies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are taken to safeguard matters of national security in United Kingdom subsidiaries of foreign-owned defence companies. [11205]

  Mr. Spellar
  Every defence contractor needing access to information or material marked "confidential" or above requires the appropriate security clearance. A subsidiary of a foreign-owned company must ensure that no foreign national will have access to such information without the approval of my Department. At least 50 per cent. of its UK-resident directors must be UK nationals and the number of foreign nationals transferred from the parent company to work in the UK subsidiary must not be excessive, having regard to all the circumstances. My Department must be satisfied that the arrangements that are made meet UK national security requirements and is assisted in coming to a determination by the Security Service.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account is taken in procurement decisions of the ultimate ownership of the bidders. [11204]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is one of the many factors which are taken into consideration when procurement decisions are made.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the conclusions of phase 1 of the strategic defence review under the code of practice on access to official information. [11086]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply of 28 July,Official Report, column 75.

  Equipment Exhibition
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will cancel the invitation to the three Indonesian generals to attend the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition at Farnborough in September 1997. [8907]

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will refuse permission for representatives of the Indonesian Government to attend the Farnborough arms fair. [11137]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. It is well understood by all those who attend RNBAEE that the Government consider licence applications for defence exports on a case-by-case basis. Attendance at the exhibition does not imply that we will license the export of any equipment to any particular country.

  Duke of York's Royal Military School
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Duke of York's Royal Military School for 1997–98. [12206]
  354
  Mr. Spellar
  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for 1997–1998:

  1. To achieve 100 per cent. of GCSE passes at grade A* to G.

  2. To achieve five or more GCSE passes at grades A* to C for 78 per cent of candidates.

  3. To achieve 88 per cent. of A-level passes at grades A to E.

  4. To achieve three or more A-level passes at grades A and E for 80 per cent. of candidates.

  5. To achieve 34 per cent. of A-level passes at grades A and B.

  6. To achieve 100 per cent. award rate for GNVQ advanced and BTEC national diploma courses.

  7. To achieve places in higher education for 70 per cent. of sixth form leavers.

  8. To achieve a pupil per capita cost of £12,6331.

  9. To generate income of £427,000.

  10. To achieve 250 applications for September 1998 intake.

  1Based on MoD Land and Property valuations as at 1 January 1996.

  Service Children's Education
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for Service Children's Education for 1997–98. [12217]

  Mr. Spellar
  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for 1997–98:

  1. Exceed UK LEA average of pupils gaining A* to C grades in five or more subjects at GCSE by 2 per cent.

  2. Exceed UK average percentage pass rate at grades A* to C by 1 per cent.

  3. Maintain an overall percentage pass rate for GNVQ intermediate level at 91 per cent.

  4. Exceed UK average pass rate at standard attainment tasks and tests—SATS—at each of ages seven, 11, and 14 in English, Maths and Science by 2 per cent.

  5. Implement the SCE elements of the MOD scheme(s) for the provision of nursery education overseas from September 1997 for a trial/pilot scheme.

  6. To achieve a percentage reduction in real terms in pupil per capita costs—measured against total agency resource costs—of 2.5 per cent.

  7. Achieve an index of satisfaction with service children's education within the Army wives continuous attitude survey above 352.

  8. Ensure percentage of inquiries and/or requests answered within 10 days of receipt is at least 85 per cent.

  Naval Manning Agency
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Manning Agency for 1997–98. [12210]

  Dr. Reid
  The chief executive of the Naval Manning Agency has been set the following key targets for 1997–98:

  1. Greater than 93.7 per cent. of officer billets to be filled.

  2. Greater than 94.1 per cent. of Naval rating/Royal Marine other ranks billets to be filled.

  3. Total strength of naval personnel measured as three year average to be within 1 per cent. of the set requirement.

  4. Greater than 60 per cent. of officers to receive more than 4 months notice for change of employment.

  5. Greater than 98 per cent of ratings/other ranks to receive more than the specified notice for change of employment.

  6. The number of occurrences where minimum time ashore criteria are not met to be fewer than 150 per year.

  355

  7. To achieve a progressive annual 10 per cent. reduction in the number of manpower gaps within the scope of the agency's control.

  8. To conduct two bench-marking exercises per year.

  9. To produce trial accruals-based accounts for the period 2 July 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  10. To produce full accruals-based accounts from 1 April 1997.

  Queen Victoria School
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Queen Victoria School for 1997–98. [12218]

  Mr. Spellar
  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for 1997–1998:

  1. To maintain the staying on rate at school for S4 to S5 at a minimum of 68 per cent. based on a three-year trend.

  2. To maintain the percentage of pupils obtaining at least five credit awards at standard grade at 2 per cent. above the average for all Scottish presentations, based on a three-year trend.

  3. To maintain a percentage of the presentations at higher grades achieving A to C at least equal to the Scottish average based on three-year trend.

  4. To complete the review in all 5–14 subjects by March 1998 in the second phase of planning and development of the 5–14 national programme.

  5. To complete the audit requirement for learning support throughout the whole school and modify the school development plan accordingly.

  6. To implement measures resulting from the audit of teaching and learning in S4 and S5/S6.

  7. To continue with the dynamic programme of measures to ensure a satisfactory report from the welfare inspector required by the Children(Scotland) Act 1995.

  8. To prepare appropriate senior staff in the process of conducting individual teacher staff appraisal coupled with subject reviews for introduction by March 1999.

  9. To have successfully completed the second phase of admission of girls by March 1998.

  10. To implement recommendations of the prep working group by March 1998.

  11. To achieve pupil per capita cost of £17,420 by March 1998.

  12. To generate commercial income to the school of £20,000 per annum.

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency for 1997–98. [12208]

  Dr. Reid
  The chief executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency has been set the following key targets for 1997–98:

  1. Recruiting and initial training: To deliver personnel to the trained strength—or to other training organisations—within 10 per cent. variance from the tasked requirement;

  2. Customer satisfaction: To obtain a customer satisfaction rating of at least 83 per cent.

  3. Career and pre joining training: To maintain success rates of 95 per cent. in career training, and 97 per cent. in examined pre-joining training.

  4. Royal naval reserve: To increase the strength of the RNR to at least 2,950 by 31 March 1998.

  5. Resources: To retain tasked capacity while operating NRTA within its cash provision.

  356

  6. Competing for quality: To achieve net benefits of £4.5 million from the partnering arrangement with Flagship Training Ltd.

  7. Management information and reporting: To implement the training pipeline management information system by July 1997, to complete the information systems infrastructure project by December 1997, and to implement project capital initial capability by March 1998.

  8. HM Treasury Accounts Direction: To include satisfactory dummy auditable accounts in the agency annual report for financial year 1996–97, in preparation for meeting the Treasury accounts direction for financial year 1997–98.

  Disposal Sales Agency
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Disposal Sales Agency for 1997–98. [12205]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since its launch in October 1994, the Disposal Sales Agency has achieved over £340 million in gross sales receipts and has made significant efficiency savings. The following key targets set for the chief executive for this financial year have a continuing focus on receipts, for improvement in the services provided by the agency.

  1. To achieve disposal sales income of £48 million from Government-to-Government sales of surplus capital equipment and stores.

  2. To achieve disposal sales income of £30 million from commercial sales of MOD's surplus items.

  3. To offer the agency's disposal service to the wider public sector market to secure £2 million in sales income on behalf of new non-MOD customers.

  4. To expand the agency's disposal services to cover waste disposal for MOD and the wider public sector market—to undertake market research, selection of approved contractors and the placement of appropriate contracts by 31 March 1998.

  5. To introduce new agency information technology systems and trial link to IT storage and marketing contractor by 30 September 1997.

  6. To secure investors in people accreditation by 31 March 1998.

  7. To achieve key targets and other management actions within cash budgetary allocation of £3.5 million.

  Regimental Museums
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the public funding of regimental museums. [7114]

  Mr. Spellar
  The funding of regimental and corps museums was reviewed in 1995. This led to a decision to reduce the funds allocated to museum operation by 12.7 per cent. from April 1998. Since then, an Army museums panel has been constituted whose responsibilities include reviewing the allocation of public funds that are applied to the operation of regimental and corps museums.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he or his Department have had with the Department of National Heritage concerning attracting a wider range of sources of funding for regimental museums. [7115]

  Mr. Spellar
  An Army museums panel has been established with responsibility for guiding policy for
  357
  regimental and corps museums. The panel includes representation from the Museums and Galleries Commission, and the Department of National Heritage. The panel as a whole considers opportunities for alternative sources of funding including bids to the heritage lottery fund. Three regimental museums have so far obtained HLF funding.

  Army Personnel
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what figure for personnel in the Army will be used as the benchmark under the current defence review. [11088]

  Dr. Reid
  The strategic defence review will decide upon the size and structure of the Army in accordance with what is needed to meet our nation's interests and commitments. There is no benchmark figure for the strength of the Army in relation to the review.

  Mr. Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has taken to retain, recruit and re-enlist service personnel to fill vacancies in the Army. [11087]

  Dr. Reid
  The Army has a number of initiatives in place to ensure that personnel of the right quality are retained in the service in sufficient numbers. This includes retention bonuses to target specific groups of soldiers where retention problems have been identified, for example in the Household Cavalry, the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery and the infantry. In addition, re-enlistment bounties are available to ex-regular soldiers in the above regiments and corps who agree to rejoin the active list. A recruiting bounty is also payable to serving soldiers in the arms with particular recruiting difficulties, who sponsor a recruit to join their regiment or corps.

  Recruiting for the Army is a continuous process, but from time to time, campaigns are undertaken to target specific population groups. At the present moment, there is an enhanced summer advertising campaign in progress, which is aimed at 16 and 17-year-olds who have just left school. Other measures planned and approved are the Army Foundation college, due to open in September 1998, and the Scotland school leavers scheme, due to begin its first course in January 1998. This scheme is a short-term measure to address the acute manpower shortages in the Scottish infantry. Both these schemes are aimed at 16-year-old school leavers and will provide a good grounding in core skills in the NVQ/SCOTVEC schemes, as well as basic military training. In addition, I have approved the retention of 41 high street Army careers information offices until at least 2000. Further measures are being considered.

  Mark 2 Chinook
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems have been reported to his Department with the mark 2 Chinook helicopter since 1993. [11203]

  Mr. Spellar
  We regularly receive service bulletins from the manufacturers of the aircraft and its engines which identify potential, or actual, technical problems.358
  Appropriate action is taken to respond to this advice. No major problems have been reported since the aircraft entered service with the RAF in November 1993.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what trials his Department is conducting to investigate the operational safety of the mark 2 Chinook. [11201]

  Mr. Spellar
  All trials are aimed at ensuring that an aircraft is safe for operational use. For the Chinook HC Mk2, flight trials are currently taking place, or are planned, to extend the operational capability of the aircraft within the manufacturer's cleared flight envelope and to evaluate new equipments.

  Injured Service Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel in the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) RAF have invalided out due to injuries received during non-combatant duties in the last 10 years. [10433]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  1987

  64

  121

  12

  1988

  57

  160

  29

  1989

  70

  182

  18

  1990

  36

  132

  16

  1991

  21

  55

  17

  1992

  24

  122

  18

  1993

  26

  139

  12

  1994

  64

  213

  23

  1995

  98

  390

  46

  1996

  106

  482

  59

  1. Figures are for calendar years and are as at 25 July 1997.

  2. Army figures include Gurkhas.

  Service Colleges
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the annual defence budget of (i) amalgamating the Royal naval college Greenwich and the Army staff college Camberley, and (ii) establishing and running the Joint Service Command and Staff College at Bracknell until its move to a permanent site at Watchfield, Wiltshire. [8192]

  Dr. Reid
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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

  359
  (ii) in the period 1 January to 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. [8815]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: The Department of Social Security's press releases are made available to hon. Members and to the media via the Central Office of Information's news distribution service. NDS's delivery mechanisms include a newswire service which, among others, supplies press releases to the parliamentary online information service, which can be accessed by all Members of Parliament and peers, hand deliveries, fax and postal services, online databases and a widely accessed world wide web site.

  These methods 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 example, whether press releases are dispatched on their own, or accompanied by reports, consultation documents and so on. No separate costing is available for the hand delivery service alone.

  The Department also runs its own mailing list for press releases for organisations such as welfare rights and charities. This is a postal service.

  The number of press releases issued from 1 May to 1 July was 52 and from 1 January to 1 March was 66.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances(a) carers can claim invalid care allowance about the age of 65 years and (b) eligible carers below the age of 65 years can postpone their receipt of invalid care allowance until they reach the age of 65 years or above. [10857]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government recognise the valuable contribution made by carers to providing community care. Benefit provision is aimed at helping to maintain the income of someone who gives up the opportunity of full-time work to provide care on a regular and substantial basis to a severely disabled person.

  One of the qualifying conditions for invalid care allowance is, therefore, that a person has not attained pensionable age. Payments of ICA may continue beyond age 65, if entitlement was established before that age. There is no provision for people to postpone receipt of the benefit.

  We are committed to a review with the objective of reducing poverty and welfare dependency and promoting work incentives. Provision for disabled people and their carers will form part of that review.

  Employee Relocation Allowances
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to extend the scope of national insurance contributions to employee relocation allowances. [12159]

  Mr. Denham
  As part of looking for areas in which tax and national insurance could be brought closer together, it 360
  has become necessary to examine the national insurance liability of some relocation expenses. Subject to Parliament's approval of regulations, from 6 April 1998, national insurance contributions will be collected on those relocation allowances that do not qualify for tax relief.

  In the large majority of cases, national insurance contributions are currently not collected on the relocation allowances paid by employers. By comparison, some allowances do not qualify for any tax exemption whatsoever, while some do. For example, the allowances on which tax is payable include those for additional housing costs incurred if the employee moves to a higher cost area. Other allowances such as legal and estate agents' fees, stamp duty and removal expenses are exempt from tax up to a maximum of £8,000 for each relocation.

  This change will bring the two systems closer together over these payments while recognising the important differences between them. The new rules will exclude from national insurance contributions only those allowances that could qualify for tax relief as listed in tax legislation.

  This is a fairer way of dealing with the national insurance position on these allowances which are paid to the approximately 120,000 employees who receive help from their employers in work-related moves every year.

  The extra revenue to the national insurance fund will amount to about £50 million a year once the charge is fully in place. The fund pays for all contributory benefits. These benefits are extremely important to the people who receive them, including some of the nation's poorest pensioners, and we must ensure that employers and employees pay their fair share.

  To assist employers with relocations already planned, these changes will not affect employees who start a job in a new location before 6 April 1998 or their employers. The current treatment will continue to apply for all their relocation payments.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for the refurbishment of ministerial offices in her Department; and what is the estimated cost of the works and date of completion. [11876]

  Mr. Field
  There are currently no plans for refurbishing ministerial offices in this Department.

  Pensions Review
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Government's review of pension provision will include(a) occupational and (b) personal pensions. [11821]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are committed to support and strengthen the existing framework for occupational pensions, and to create a new framework of secure, flexible and value-for-money stakeholder pensions for those who do not have the opportunity of contributing to a second pension, either because they lack the resources
  361
  or because they do not have access to a decent second scheme. We also recognise that personal pensions, appropriately regulated, will remain a good option for many.

  The review of the central areas of insecurity for elderly people announced on 17 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will include all aspects of the basic state pension and its value and second pensions, including occupational pensions, personal pensions and state earnings-related pension scheme.

  Benefits Agency (Leeds Offices)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for how many hours each Benefits Agency office within the Leeds metropolitan district was open for advice to members of the public during a full working week in May 1997; and what were the comparable figures for May 1996; [10671]

  (2) what was the average number of visits by members of the public at each Benefits Agency office in the Leeds metropolitan district during the period April to June 1997; and what were the comparable figures for April to June 1996. [10672]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We will streamline services to provide better, simpler more efficient services to claimants and other customers. Queries on operational matters are for the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Gunnell, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Benefits Agency offices within the Leeds Metropolitan District.
  The information available is shown in the attached tables. The BA district in Leeds has offices at Leeds East, North, North-West, South and West. There has been a BA presence, offering advice and information to unemployed customers, in Employment Service Jobcentres since the introduction of Job Seekers Allowance in October 1996.
  The caller offices in Otley, Rothwell and Morley were closed on 31 Janaury 1997 and the opening hours in Leeds East, South and West were
  extended on 24 February 1997.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  align="center">Benefits agency Leeds district office opening hours

  May 1996

  May 1997

  Branch offices

  Leeds East

  35½

  36

  Leeds South

  35½

  36

  Leeds West

  35½

  36

  Leeds North West

  36

  36

  Leeds North

  36

  36

  Caller offices

  Otley

  13

  —

  Rothwell

  30

  —

  Morley

  31¼

  —

  Employment service jobcentres

  Otley

  —

  36

  Rothwell

  —

  35

  Morley

  —

  35½

  Guiseley

  —

  36

  Pudsey

  —

  37

  362

  align="center">Benefits agency Leeds district office opening hours

  May 1996

  May 1997

  Seacroft

  —

  36

  Stanningley

  —

  36

  Hunslet

  —

  36½

  Dysons

  —

  36½

  Eastgate

  —

  36½

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Average number of visits from public in the benefits agency Leeds district April to June 1996 and 1997

  Average number

  Callers April—June 1996

  Leeds East

  5,910

  Leeds South

  12,948

  Leeds West

  3,294

  Leeds North West

  24,588

  Leeds North

  4,809

  Callers April—June 1997

  Leeds East

  35,028

  Leeds South

  1,564

  Leeds West

  2,863

  Leeds North West

  3,766

  Leeds North

  4,819

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  1 This figure includes callers to the Rothwell and Morley caller offices

  2 This figure includes callers to the Otley caller office.

  3 This figure includes 1,152 BA callers to the Employment Service jobcentres.

  Benefits Fraud Hotline
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer on the benefits fraud hotline of 10 July,Official Report, column 591, if the weekly figure for benefit savings of £35 million relates to savings over a 12-month period; and if she will make it her policy in future answers to use the term "weekly benefit" only in circumstances where it is defined in the text. [11111]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to restore confidence in the benefits system by tackling fraud and ensuring value for taxpayers' money. Questions on Benefits Agency operational matters are the responsibility of the chief executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if the weekly figure for benefit savings of £35 million, referred to in my reply dated 9 July 1997, relates to savings over a 12 month period, if she will make it her policy in future answers to use the term weekly benefit only in circumstances where it is defined in the text.
  The £35 million weekly benefit savings have been generated since the launch of the Hotline on 5 August 1996 up to the end of May 1997, and relates to a ten month period. For the eleven month period up to the end of June 1997 the cumulative savings figure was £41.91 million. Weekly benefit savings are calculated by taking the difference between the amount incorrectly paid to an individual and the correct amount of benefit due, following intervention of the fraud officer. This amount is multiplied by 32. Based on research

  363
  which mainly covered Income Support, 32 weeks is the average length of time a claim would have continued if the fraud had not been detected. This multiplier is currently applied to all benefits.
  I apologise this was not made clear in my previous reply.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the increase required in class 1 contribution rates in each year up to 2000–01 if the basic pension were uprated in line with average earnings, relative to the contributions required for price-uprating, assuming that other contribution rates are increased by the same percentage. [10568]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: The information is in the table.

  Percentage increase in national insurance contribution rates1

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  Employee Class 12

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  Employer Class 1 and Class 1A2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Notes:

  1 Calculations are based on the 1997 Budget economic assumptions.

  2 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 per cent.

  1. It has been assumed that the cost for all benefits whose rate is the same as the basic state pension, i.e. widow's benefit and the long-term rate of incapacity benefit would rise accordingly.

  2. The split of rates between employee and employer contributions was achieved by considering that for an employee on average earnings for a full-time adult, the increase in contributions paid by an employee would be the same as the increase paid by the employer.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of allowing pensioners to draw their state pensions from the age of 60 years. [7547]

  Mr. Denham
  It is estimated that the cost of allowing all pensioners to draw their full retirement pension from age 60 would be around £9 billion a year. When changes in incapacity benefit and income-related benefits are taken into account, the net cost would be around £7 billion.

  The review of pensions announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider all aspects of the basic state retirement pension. However, the Government have no plans to put forward proposals for lowering state pension age.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are in respect of 2000–01, and are in 1997–98 prices. They assume the change takes effect from April 2000, with no phasing.

  2. The expenditure effects on the national insurance fund have been estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. The income-related benefit offsets have been calculated using the 1997–98 policy simulation model based on the 1994–95 family resources survey and the 1997–98 prices, benefits and earnings levels, and calibrated to the forecasts underlying the 1997 departmental report.

  3. Underlying assumptions are that everyone will claim their pension entitlement at 60, and that there will be no behavioural effects—for example, the economic activity and income other than retirement pensions of individuals in benefit units who gain remains constant.

  4. Effects on national insurance contributions, rebates and tax have not been taken into account.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the effects of the reduction in income support levels for lone parents to be introduced in April 1998 on the diet and living standards of the children of lone parents remaining on income support. [10768]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Existing recipients of the lone parent rate of the family premium in income support will not be affected as the benefit changes will affect only lone parents making new claims. It is not possible to assess accurately the effect of the reduction in income support levels on the diet and living standards of the children of those lone parents who will make a new claim for income support: individual lone parents will chose to spend their income support in different ways. The best way we can help lone parents to improve significantly their living standards is to help them move into work. That is why we have set up the new deal to help them to do this. Lone parents in work are, on average, £50 a week better off than they are out of work.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received from organisations representing lone parents about(a) the level of income support for lone parents and (b) the level of child benefit for lone parents; and if she will place copies of such representations in the Library. [10770]

  Mr. Bradley
  Representations about the proposed changes to lone parent benefits were made by a wide variety of organisations, including those representing lone parents, to the Social Security Advisory Committee; the same points have been raised in regular discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and lone parent organisations. These representations were reflected in the Social Security Advisory Committee's report, which was published on 30 July together with the Government's response as Command Paper 3713. However, lone parent organisations recognise that work offers lone parents the best way to improve their standard of living, and have welcomed the new deal for lone parents.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which her Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10744]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department of Social Security's payroll function is carried out in-house using an integrated pay and personnel computer system. The networked system is available across the Department for the operation of payroll and personnel management through local personnel units. A database, holding details of employee accounts, shares a mainframe computer with the Department's main benefit processing systems. All DSS staff salaries are paid by the system either monthly or weekly directly into bank accounts via automated credit transfer.
  365
  Management of personnel unit operations rests separately with each individual executive agency and department headquarters. An external supplier, Harvest Ltd. has responsibility for Contributions Agency personnel operations. It was the successful bidder in a market test exercise. All other personnel operations are in-house.

  Payroll support services, for all agencies, are operated by the Benefits Agency under a joint venture agreement. The central administration, technical support units and IT operations are run from the Department's Newcastle offices. The BA contracts the Information Technology Services Agency for system running, maintenance and support. ITSA in turn manages a series of contracts with external providers of IT services that cover the whole range of administration and benefits systems which the DSS operates. Payroll IT operations form a small part of these total contracts. The external service providers for the Department's IT services, including payroll, are EDS, Sema Group and Bull Systems.

  The pay and personnel system is part of the Department's financial and management information system—FAMIS—which also includes its administrative accounting systems. The payroll and personnel element of FAMIS was developed entirely in house, by the BA and ITSA, over a three-year period and has been operating successfully for four years. It now supports six separate pay, grading and reward structures, one for each agency and department headquarters. The system is also responsible for tax and national insurance administration for all DSS staff.

  There are no direct, on-going, co-operation arrangements in place for payroll with other Departments apart from standing arrangements for employee transfers between Departments.

  Because FAMIS has been designed to support both pay and personnel functions within the Department by the use of a common data base and IT processes, it is not possible to provide costs that solely relate to payroll processing. The information in the following table relates to central business and IT process costs to support both payroll and personnel activity in the Department.

  align="center">DSS expenditure on payroll 1996–97

  align="right">£ million

  Function

  Labour costs

  IT costs

  Record maintenance and main payroll functions including ACT, tax and national insurance calculation and payment

  1.46

  1.36

  Annual pay awards (6)

  0.31

  0.30

  Business support/helpline

  0.72

  —

  Pay re-calculation processing and appeals including recovery action on overpayments

  0.84

  —

  Computer system support

  —

  0.47

  Total

  3.33

  2.13

  Mortgage Interest Claimants
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefit and income support for 366
  mortgage interest claimants have had their benefit reduced because of non-dependent charges for those with gross weekly incomes of (a) less than £78, (b) between £78 and £115.99, (c) between £116 and £151.99, (d) between £152 and £199.99 (£152 plus for income support—jobseekees allowance only claimants), (e) between £200 and £249.99 and (f) £250 or more. [10595]

  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.

  Information is not yet available in relation to the income bands requested, which relate to April 1997 benefit rates. The latest information available for housing benefit is that for May 1995 and for income support mortgage interest is that for August 1996. This information is set out in the table and relates to the gross income bands in force at the relevant times.

  align="right">Number

  All housing benefit cases with non-dependant deductions May 1995

  136,000

  Number of non-dependant deductions

  140,000

  Gross income < £74.00

  19,000

  Gross income £74.00-£110.99

  26,000

  Gross income £ 111.00-£ 144.99

  32,000

  Gross income £145.00 and over

  62,000

  The data refer to the number of housing benefit recipients who have non-dependants in work and the number of actual non-dependants with gross income within each band.

  Number

  All income support mortgage interest cases with non-dependant deductions (August 1996)

  32,000

  Number of non-dependant deductions

  4,000

  Gross income < £76.00

  29,000

  Gross income £76.00-£113.99

  4,000

  Gross income £ 114.00-£ 149.99

  4,000

  Gross income £150.00 and over

  8,000

  Notes:

  The lowest income band shown in the income support tables includes deductions made at the lowest fixed rate where the non-dependant is on income support or their gross weekly earnings have not been specified.

  Sources:

  1. Income support quarterly statistical inquiry August 1996.

  2. Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample taken at the end of May 1995.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will provide a breakdown of the(a) age, (b) gender, (c) race and (d) household type of claimants who have their housing benefit or income support for mortgage interest reduced because of non-dependent charges. [10594]

  Mr. 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.

  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table. The latest date information is available for housing benefit is May 1995; for income support it is August 1996. Information on gender and race for housing benefit claimants and on race for income support mortgage interest claimants is not available.

  367

  align="center">All housing benefit recipients with non-dependent deduction—May 1995

  Age of claimant

  All cases

  Lone parent

  Single without dependents

  Couple with dependents

  Couple without dependents

  All cases

  1301,000

  184,000

  32,000

  62,000

  24,000

  Under 25

  5,000

  3,000

  1,000

  —

  —

  25 to 59

  140,000

  67,000

  30,000

  23,000

  20,000

  60 and over

  157,000

  114,000

  1,000

  38,000

  4,000

  1 Figure refers to the total number of housing benefit recipients with non-dependants attracting deductions.

  align="center">All income support mortgage interest recipients with non-dependant deductions—August 1996

  Age of claimant

  All cases

  Lone parent

  Single without dependants

  Couple with dependants

  Couple without dependants

  All cases

  32,000

  5,000

  12,000

  6,000

  8,000

  Under 25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25 to 59

  23,000

  5,000

  8,000

  5,000

  5,000

  60 and over

  9,000

  —

  5,000

  1,000

  4,000

  align="center">Male income support mortgage interest recipients with non-dependant deductions—August 1996

  Age of claimant

  All cases

  Lone parent

  Single without dependants

  Couple with dependants

  Couple without dependants

  All cases

  17,000

  1,000

  3,000

  5,000

  8,000

  Under 25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25 to 59

  12,000

  —

  3,000

  5,000

  4,000

  60 and over

  5,000

  —

  1,000

  1,000

  4,000

  Female income support mortgage interest recipients with non-dependant deductions—August 1996

  Age of claimant

  All cases

  Lone parent

  Single without dependants

  Couple with dependants

  Couple without dependants

  All cases

  14,000

  5,000

  9,000

  —

  1,000

  Under 25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25 to 59

  10,000

  5,000

  5,000

  —

  —

  60 and over

  4,000

  —

  4,000

  —

  —

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand and may not sum due to rounding.

  Sources:

  1. Income support quarterly statistical inquiry, August 1996.

  2. Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries taken at the end of May 1995.

  Social Security Benefits
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the numbers and proportion of unemployed persons who are not in receipt of any social security benefit. [10434]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  In 1995–96, there were on average about 600,000 persons who were unemployed and not receiving any social security benefit excluding child benefit. This represents about one in four of the total number of persons unemployed. Approximately 70 per cent. of these had working partners or shared a household containing at least one working person.

  The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. Our welfare-to-work objectives are to provide work incentives, reduce poverty and welfare dependency and strike a new balance between responsibilities and rights.

  Note:

  An approximation to the International Llabour Organisation definition of unemployed was used.

  Cervical Spondylosis
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received in 368
  respect of making cervical spondylosis an industrial disease in respect of train drivers and if she will make a statement. [10652]

  Mr. Denham
  No such representations have been received.

  I am advised on matters relating to the industrial injuries scheme, and in particular on the prescription of diseases, by the independent Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which continually monitor all publications and research on occupational health matters. I understand that the council found no scientific evidence of a strong occupational link between this disease, which is common in the general population, and any particular occupation.

  Widow's Benefits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for widow's benefits have been refused in the last year because the claimant's marriage was polygamous. [10290]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefits Agency does not keep records of the number of claims for widow's benefits which have been rejected because the claimant's marriage was polygamous.

  Sponsored Immigrants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will introduce proposals to allow sponsored immigrants to claim benefits in the event of their sponsorship agreement breaking down. [10289]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for income support have been refused since 5 February 1996 on the ground that the claimant is a sponsored immigrant. [10287]

  Mr. Bradley
  From May 1996 to April 1997, 129 claims for income support from sponsored immigrants were refused.

  Source:

  Clerical management statistics (not validated).

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how often since 1992 her Department has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9510]

  Mr. Denham
  Records of recruitment exercises are available only as far back as 1994. The Department has not used aged restrictions in employment advertisements at any time sine 1994 but in practice does not recruit staff over age 60. This is because the normal retirement age for most grades in DSS is age 60.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to enable the disabled to enter part-time employment without loss of the mobility component of disability living allowance. [10398]

  Mr. Denham
  Work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. Disabled people in receipt of disability living allowance can work either full or part-time with no loss of benefit.

  Local Exchange Trading Systems
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer on 26 June,Official Report, column 640, regarding the role of local exchange trading systems in areas of high employment, what are the benefit rules relating to the treatment of LETS; and if she will make a statement. [9906]

  Benefits agency

  Contributions agency

  Information technology services agency

  War pensions agency

  Pay band

  Number of staff

  Pay band

  Number of staff

  Pay band

  Number of staff

  Pay band

  Number of staff

  £6,943-£13,474

  58,762

  £7,150-£16,300

  2,779

  £8,261-£18,711

  1,394

  £7,217-£13,628

  872

  £11,895-£ 18,053

  18,729

  £9,450-£22,350

  5,577

  £17,111-£27,711

  701

  £11,663-£18,321

  305

  £15,147-£27,118

  2,721

  £15,650-£29,600

  540

  £26,211-£50,607

  99

  £15,986-£30,246

  42

  £25,343-£58,377

  420

  £23,200-£54,300

  47

  £25,466-£50,972

  6

  Child support agency

  DSS headquarters

  Independent statutory bodies

  Pay range

  Number of staff

  Pay range

  Number of staff

  Pay range

  Number of staff

  £7,150-£11,350

  1,509

  £7,279-£l 1,759

  187

  £7,279-£l 1,759

  409

  £9,050-£13,900

  5,007

  £9,222-£14,404

  342

  £9,222-£14,404

  457

  370
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Participation in a local exchange trading system scheme is regarded as work for the purposes of jobseeker's allowance and income support. The credits received are taken into account as actual earnings. Family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit treat LETS credits in same way.

  Neither jobseeker's allowance nor income support are payable to people who work for, on average, 16 hours or more a week–24 hours for partners of people receiving income-based jobseeker's allowance or income support.

  Where a person spends less than 16 hours a week on LETS activities, the credits are taken into account as earnings subject to the appropriate disregard—normally £5 a week. Any expenses wholly and exclusively defrayed for the purposes of the LETS activity, together with an amount in respect of tax and national insurance contributions, can also be deducted from the earnings.

  People claiming unemployment-related benefits must also continue to satisfy the labour market requirements of being available for and actively seeking work. Under jobseeker's allowance, people must normally be available for a minimum of 40 hours a week, but can stipulate their own pattern of availability with the employment officer—within reasonable limits. For jobseekers participating in LETS, this means that they must either be prepared to give up the LETS work to take up a full-time job, or be able to move the LETS activities to avoid any conflict; or be available in accordance with a pattern of work which gives them reasonable prospects of securing employment, while avoiding conflict with their LETS activities.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil servants there are in total on each payband in her Department. [9585]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is in the tables.

  Senior civil service (including pay range for permanent secretaries)

  Pay band

  Number of staff

  £38,760-£60,890

  54

  £42,740-£68,540

  20

  £47,120-£77,110

  7

  £52,020-£86,700

  16

  £57,020-£91,800

  3

  £62,420-£97,210

  1

  £68,340-£102,940

  4

  £74,660-£109,040

  0

  £81,600-£115,570

  1

  £91,800-£157,590

  1

  371

  Child support agency

  DSS headquarters

  Independent statutory bodies

  Pay range

  Number of staff

  Pay range

  Number of staff

  Pay range

  Number of staff

  £11,550-£22,600

  2,173

  £11,755-£22,523

  395

  £11,755-£22,523

  210

  £15,800-£27,700

  363

  £14,074-£26,349

  351

  £16,140-£26,349

  138

  £19,750-£32,600

  85

  £20,187-£32,058

  129

  £20,187-£32,058

  25

  £25,250-£41,750

  26

  £26,677-£43,933

  185

  £26,677-£43,933

  8

  £28,800-£51,050

  8

  £27,278-£53,669

  58

  £27,278-£53,669

  1

  1. Where national and London pay bands exist the national scale has been used to determine the minimum and the London scale the maximum.

  2. Pay bands have not been introduced in the Child Support Agency, DSS headquarters or the independent statutory bodies; their tables show pay ranges for civil service grades.

  3. Figures for the senior civil service are additional to those shown elsewhere.

  4. Includes all staff on payroll as at 17 July 1997.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of employees, in each payband, in the quangos for which her Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9584]

  Mr. Bradley
  The information is in the tables.

  align="right">Number and percentage

  Payband

  Number of employees of Asian origin

  Number of employees of Afro-Caribbean origin

  Independent tribunal service

  £11,544-£17,869

  3 (2.97)

  4 (3.96)

  £9,041-£13,546

  9 (2.71)

  13 (3.93)

  £7,136-£11,439

  10 (3.7)

  13 (4.81)

  Central adjudication services

  £7,279-£10,989

  1 (7.69)

  1 (7.69)

  Pensions ombudsman

  £19,791-£27,394

  1 (10)

  0

  £11,544-£ 17,869

  1 (50)

  0

  £9,041-£ 13,546

  2 (67)

  1 (33)

  £7,464-£l 1,439

  1 (100)

  0

  Occupational pensions regulatory authority

  £15,824-£22,351

  2 (8.33)

  0

  Income Support
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence she has obtained of work disincentives for people on income support seeking(a) part-time work and (b) full-time work topped-up by family credit; and if she will make a statement. [8198]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  A number of studies have been carried out, both by the Department of Social Security and by research organisations, which have looked at possible disincentives to work, for example, studies into the effects of the unemployment and poverty traps. We have studied the findings carefully. The circumstances of lone parents seeking work, for example, were explored in the Department's research "Moving off Income Support:Barriers and Bridges", published last year and this helped develop our proposals for a new deal for lone parents. The report established that a significant obstacle for lone parents moving in to work was the cost of child care and we are addressing this with our national child care strategy and with the recently announced enhancements to the child care disregard, which are the first steps in our 372
  programme of helping parents to have access to affordable, good-quality child care if they are to balance work and family life successfully. The new deal for lone parents will be important in our continuing evaluation of barriers to work. We want to make it worth while for people to make the transition into work and ensure a fair return on extra earnings once they are in work. We believe work is the best form of welfare for people of working age.

  Modernising the social security system is a key priority of the Government and Martin Taylor, chief executive of Barclays plc, has been appointed to spearhead a Whitehall task force on tax and benefits. The task force will deliver the Government's pledge to streamline and modernise the system to fulfil the objectives of promoting work incentives, reducing poverty and welfare dependency, and strengthening community and family life.

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with care of children currently have benefit reductions made under the Child Support Act regulations concerning penalties for failure to co-operate with the CSA; and what has been the total amount of the benefit not paid for this reason in 1997 to date. [10664]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We think it right that lone mothers should co-operate wherever possible in requesting maintenance for their children from the father.

  The latest available information is from August 1996, which shows that around 16,000 parents with care in receipt of income support were subject to a benefit reduction for failure to co-operate with the Child Support Agency without good reason. It is not yet possible to assess the total amount of benefit withheld since April this year but, over 1997–98 as a whole, it is estimated that the value of reduced benefit directions in income support will be around £15 million

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much extra the Child Support Agency is budgeting to spend on its telephone operations in 1997–98. [7559]

  Mr. 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.
  373
  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 29 July 1997
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency budget for telephone operations during 1997–98.
  At the present time access to the Agency can be made by means of the National Enquiry Line, Client Helplines, or by direct dial to Child Support Officers in the Child Support Agency Centres and associated Field Offices.
  The National Enquiry Line occupies a central location and is available to anyone who has a general enquiry about the Agency. The Agency has a target for answering general enquiries under its Charter Standards: we aim to answer enquiries within 20 seconds during normal working hours. Performance against this standard was 64 per cent. during 1996–97.
  A Client Helpline is available in each of the six Centres to deal with clients' case specific enquiries. The Agency has had no target which covers this area, but it is clear that this is an area where the service offered by the Agency has not fully met its customers needs and we are currently looking at the definition of the targets.
  I am committed to improving this and plans are in place to improve the service. In 1996–97 the Agency spent £2.2 million on running costs for its telephone system; it is anticipated that £2.7 million will be spent in 1997–98. Overall, the Agency focus is on providing a more efficient and accessible telephone service for clients making best use of its existing resources.
  The Agency plans to employ staff to work a wider more flexible range of working patterns over six days a week. This will provide more opportunities for customers to contact the Agency and vice versa, and will enable the Agency to deliver a better standard of customer service through greater use of the telephone. The Agency has also recently initiated an Early Positive Customer Contact project which will increase the use of the telephone by Agency staff at an early stage in our dealings with customers. The aim is that much more of our business will be conducted over the telephone rather than by correspondence, giving customers more opportunity to raise any issues or concerns earlier than at present.
  I am very conscious that there are still far too many justified complaints about the standards of basic customer contact and the service we provide. Over the next few years, I am committed to bringing high quality levels of performance to every part of our operation as a matter of routine, thereby reducing the number of complaints received and enhancing the public perception of the Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefit Claimant Inquiries
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which companies have been contracted by the Benefits Agency to handle queries from claimants in the London region in respect of delays in responding to claimants' inquiries. [9173]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  One of our key aims is to improve the service provided to claimants and other customers and, where appropriate, by awarding contracts. The current policy on the criterion against which contracts are awarded to companies following tender exercises is value for money. Both quality and whole-life cost are taken into account.

  No companies have been contracted by the Benefits Agency to handle queries from claimants in the London region in respect of delays to customers' inquiries. Queries on operational issues are for Peter Mathison, the
  374
  chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter frotn Peter Mathison to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking which companies have been contracted by the Benefits Agency (BA) to handle queries from claimants in the London region in respect of delays in responding to claimants' enquiries.No companies have been contracted by the BA to handle queries from customers in the London region in respect of delays in responding to customers' enquiries.Contracts in the London region have been awarded for post opening, switchboard operations, security and general facilities management. Where switchboard operations have been contracted out, the company is responsible for directing the telephone calls to the appropriate section. Only BA staff respond to customers' enquiries.I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Pensions and Overseas Benefits Directorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long it takes the pensions and overseas branch to process claims for(a) retirement pensions from those claiming in (i) India, (ii) Pakistan, (iii) Bangladesh, (iv) Australia, (v) South Africa and (vi) Jamaica. [10293]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to improve the service provided to claimants and other customers. Queries on Benefits Agency operational matters are the responsibility of Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how long it takes the Pensions and Overseas Benefits Directorate to process claims for Retirement Pension and Widow's Benefit for those claiming in (i) India, (ii) Pakistan, (iii) Bangladesh, (iv) Australia, (v) South Africa and (vi) Jamaica.
  The information is not available in the format requested as statistics are not available by individual country. Such information as is available is shown in the table below:

  Year ending 31 March 1997

  Target

  Achievement

  Retirement pension

  65 per cent, in 95 days

  76 per cent.

  95 per cent, in 300 days

  97 per cent.

  Widows benefit

  65 per cent, in 185 days

  83 per cent.

  95 per cent. in 640 days

  98 per cent.

  The Pensions and Overseas Benefits Directorate handles claims from customers living in over 230 countries around the world. These claims can take longer to clear than their Great Britain counterparts because confirming life event details, such as births, marriages and deaths, is often not straightforward and documentation which is readily available in the UK can take longer to obtain from other countries.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what recent representations she has received regarding the all-work test; [9776]
  375
  (2) what response the Government have made to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report published in March entitled, "An Unfit Test". [9775]

  Mr. Denham
  A number of representations have been received regarding the incapacity benefit all-work test from groups representing disabled people, other interested organisations and individuals affected. I have also seen the recent report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. Some important issues have been raised which will be considered in the context of the general review of social security. Our aim is to provide a system that helps those who can to become financially independent, and focus support on those who cannot.

  It is important that the test for incapacity benefit commands confidence as a fair system that appropriately assesses whether an individual is capable of work for benefit purposes.

HEALTH

  Private Sector NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish a breakdown of the £500 million spent by health authorities and trusts with the private sector; [6833]

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of expenditure by health authorities and trusts in the private sector in the last year for which figures are available. [11028]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Insulin Pen Needles
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's current policy concerning charges for the provision of diabetic needles by(a) general practitioners and (b) health authorities and trusts; what guidance it provides about such charges; and if that policy and guidance are under review. [9559]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: If a general practitioner prescribes, as part of general medical services, a diabetic needle that is listed for the purposes of section 41 of the National Health Service Act 1977, it will be dispensed as part of pharmaceutical services and will attract a prescription charge. The same is true for needles issued to hospital out-patients on prescription by hospital doctors. Under the National Health Services (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 1989, as amended, people with diabetes mellitus—except where treatment is by diet alone—are exempt from all prescription charges, including any which would relate to the prescribing of needles.

  If a general practitioner himself provides diabetic needles to a patient as part of general medical services, he can make no charge. Likewise, under section 1 of the 1977 Act, health authorities and trusts must not charge for services and equipment, except where the legislation expressly indicates that a charge should be made. In all other cases, including diabetic needles, where a health authority or trust—taking account of resources, needs and clinical priorities locally—decides that a piece of equipment should be provided as part of national health
  376
  service treatment, it should be provided free of charge. The Department of Health reminded health authorities and trusts of this in executive letter EL(92)20, issued in March 1992. The policy on provision of equipment by the national health service has not changed since then and is still under consideration.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 21 July,Official Report, column 414, on GP prescribing of insulin pen needles, what matters (a) have so far been considered and (b) remain to be considered in his review of insulin pen prescription; and if he will make a statement. [10473]

  Mr. Milburn
  All relevant aspects of this issue are being considered.

  Bad Debt
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amounts of bad debt and claims abandoned for each health authority in each region broken down by category for the last five years. [10423]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of trusts in each region which(a) have and (b) have not subscribed to the clinical negligence scheme for trusts, indicating the cost of each annual premium. [10410]

  Mr. Milburn
  The latest information will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the incidence of NHS trusts and health authorities rearranging their provisions for medical negligence in seeking to meet the costs of closing deficits by the end of the current financial year; and what restrictions he intends to introduce.[11136]

  Mr. Milburn
  No such estimate has been made.

  National health service trusts and health authorities are expected to make provision in their annual accounts for clinical negligence claims in accordance with directions issued by the Secretary of State. NHS trusts and health authorities in managing their finances should plan for future settlement of claims and ensure that funds are in place for this purpose.

  Surplus Property
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS surplus properties are currently occupied and utilised by NHS trusts; and what is their value. [10419]

  Mr. Milburn
  About 240 properties which are expected to become surplus over the next 10 years, and which have been retained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, are currently occupied by national health service trusts. These properties, managed by the NHS executive's regional offices, form part of the future land sales programme, and have an approximate open market value of £450 million.

  Health Visitors and District Nurses
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representation he has received about the extension of direct employment by GPs of health visitors and district nurses; and what plans he has to consult the relevant professional organisations in respect of this trend. [10484]

  Mr. Milburn
  The personal medical services pilot scheme enables different models of contracting to be developed and tested by nurses, health visitors and general practitioners. At present, those members of the national health service family who wish to enter into a personal medical services pilot from 1 April 1998 are invited to submit an application to their health authority by 1 November. We have discussed the implementation of the personal medical services pilots with all the relevant professional organisations and have asked officials to continue working closely with them.

  Loughborough General Hospital
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the successful completion of a private finance initiative project to replace Loughborough's general hospital; and if he will make a statement. [10555]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive is expecting to receive a revised full business case from Fosse Health NHS trust for the scheme to replace Loughborough's general hospital under the private finance initiative in autumn 1997. The FBC will then be considered for approval.

  As a "small-scale" scheme—within NHS executive regional office delegated limits of £10 million—this scheme will not be affected by the prioritisation exercises for the major acute schemes announced on 3 July.

  Heart Bypass Surgery
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been referred for heart bypass surgery in each health authority in the last three years. [10662]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available figures show the number of heart bypass operations carried out in each health authority which has a cardiac surgical unit, during the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. The tables show this information. Information on patients referred for treatment is not collected and data for actual treatment received are collected retrospectively.

  Estimated number of Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs), where main operation K40-K44 (OPCS4R code) was performed, by Health authority of treatment, NHS hospitals, England 1994–95

  Number

  A32 Tees DHA

  96

  A35 Newcastle and North Tyneside DHA

  782

  B11 East Riding DHA

  586

  B61 Leeds DHA

  478

  C03 Leicestershire DHA

  730

  C12 Sheffield DHA

  943

  DO1 Cambridge DHA

  1

  D09 Huntingdon DHA

  1,122

  E09 Hillingdon DHA

  686

  E20 Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow DHA

  391

  E21 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster DH

  1,335

  F35 East London and The City DHA

  2,389

  F37 Camden and Islington DHA

  635

  378

  Estimated number of Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs), where main operation K40-K44 (OPCS4R code) was performed, by Health authority of treatment, NHS hospitals, England 1994–95

  Number

  G24 Bexley and Greenwich DHA

  412

  G26 South East London DHA

  1,108

  H07 Mid Downs DHA

  1

  H17 Merton Sutton and Wandsworth

  265

  J22 Southampton and South-west Hampshire HC

  831

  K41 Oxfordshire DHA

  739

  L10 Bristol and District DHA

  548

  M07 North Staffordshire DHA

  435

  M17 Coventry DHA

  840

  M25 South Birmingham DHA

  611

  N21 Liverpool DHA

  804

  P20 North West Lancashire DHA

  82

  P26 Manchester DHA

  286

  England

  17,136

  Notes:

  Data in this table are grossed for both covered and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  The following operation codes have been used:

  K40 Saphenous vein graft replacement of coronary artery.

  K410 Other autograft replacement of coronary artery.

  K42 Allograft replacement of coronary artery.

  K43 Prosthetic replacement of coronary artery.

  K44 Other replacement of coronary artery.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

  Estimated number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs), where main operation K40-K44 (OPCS4R code) was performed, by health authority of treatment, NHS hospitals, England—1993–94

  Number

  A03 South Tees DHA

  29

  A13 Newcastle DHA

  758

  B11 East Riding DHA

  608

  B61 Leeds DHA

  671

  C03 Leicestershire DHA

  732

  C12 Sheffield DHA

  677

  D09 Huntingdon DHA

  852

  E09 Hillingdon DHA

  634

  E21 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster DH

  601

  F35 East London and City DHA

  924

  F37 Camden and Islington DHA

  507

  G11 Greenwich DHA

  417

  G26 South East London

  1,356

  H12 Wandsworth DHA

  708

  J22 Southampton and SW Hants DHA

  709

  K41 Oxfordshire DHA

  799

  L10 Bristol and District DHA

  479

  M07 North Staffordshire DHA

  412

  M17 Coventry DHA

  852

  M25 South Birmingham DHA

  658

  N21 Liverpool DHA

  701

  P02 Blackpool, Wyre, Fylde DHA

  75

  P11 Central Manchester DHA

  57

  P12 South Manchester DHA

  176

  T05 National Heart and Lung Hospital

  1,069

  T07 Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes

  400

  England

  15,863

  Notes:

  Data in this table are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  The following operation codes have been used:

  K40 Saphenous vein graft replacement of coronary artery.

  K41 Other autograft replacement of coronary artery.

  K42 Allograft replacement of coronary artery.

  K43 Prosthetic replacement of coronary artery.

  K44 Other replacement of coronary artery.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).
  379

  Estimated number of Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs), where main operation K40-K44 (OPCS4R code) was performed, by Health authority of treatment, NHS hospitals, England—1992–93

  Number

  A04 East Cumbria DHA

  1

  A13 Newcastle DHA

  809

  B13 East Yorkshire Health Authority

  629

  B61 Leeds DHA

  460

  C03 Leicestershire Health Authority

  627

  CO8 Nottingham DHA

  3

  C12 Sheffield DHA

  460

  D09 Huntingdon DHA

  565

  E08 Harrow DHA

  1

  E09 Hillingdon DHA

  603

  E14 Riverside DHA

  1

  E17 Parkside DHA

  330

  F10 The City and Hackney DHA

  460

  F12 Tower Hamlets DHA

  604

  F22 Bloomsbury and Islington DHA

  414

  G11 Greenwich DHA

  465

  G13 West Lambeth DHA

  566

  G14 Camberwell DHA

  124

  G15 Lewisham and North Southwark DHA

  477

  H12 Wandsworth DHA

  759

  J10 Dorset DHA

  1

  J22 Southampton and South-west Hampshire DHA

  648

  K41 Oxfordshire DHA

  713

  L10 Bristol and District DHA

  456

  M07 North Staffordshire DHA

  348

  M17 Coventry DHA

  759

  M25 South Birmingham DHA

  575

  N21 Liverpool DHA

  605

  P02 Blackpool Wyre and Fylde DHA

  211

  P11 Central Manchester DHA

  52

  P12 South Manchester DHA

  268

  T05 National Heart and Lung Hospital

  1,041

  T07 Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes

  454

  England

  14,488

  Notes:

  Data in this table are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  The following operation codes have been used:

  K40 Saphenous vein graft replacement of coronary artery.

  K41 Other autograft replacement of coronary artery.

  K42 Allograft replacement of coronary artery.

  K43 Prosthetic replacement of coronary artery.

  K44 Other replacement of coronary artery.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

  Heart Disease
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority, the numbers of those suffering from heart disease who are(a) male and (b) female in the most recent 12-month period. [10661]

  Ms Jowell
  The only accurate information on heart disease relates to death rates rather than to numbers of those affected. Tables and graphs showing the latest mortality rates from coronary heart disease by health authority are contained in the Public Health Common Data Set for England 1996, volume 1, copies of which are available in the Library.

  However, in the 1994 health survey for England, one quarter of the people interviewed considered themselves to have some form of cardiovascular disorder, and 6 per cent. of men and 4 per cent. of women reported having had a heart attack or angina.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many teenage girls have suffered adverse medical consequences as a result of being prescribed oral contraceptives in each of the last five years. [10486]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information available from the yellow card scheme for adverse reaction reporting is shown in the table. The scheme is voluntary for doctors, dentists, coroners and hospital pharmacists and not all adverse drug reactions are reported. A report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug, other factors may be contributory.

  Numbers of suspected adverse reactions reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines from 1 Janaury 1992 to 31 December 1996 in teenage girls prescribed oral contraceptives in the United Kingdom

  Year

  Number of adverse drug reaction reports1 in teenage girls where an oral contraceptive was a suspect drug

  1992

  36

  1993

  31

  1994

  20

  1995

  34

  1996

  22

  1 Each report relates to one patient.

  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his Department's policy on the prescription of oral contraceptives to girls aged under 16 years without their parents' knowledge or consent; [10602]

  (2) what guidelines his Department has issued on prescription of oral contraceptives to teenage girls under the age of 16 years; [10601]

  (3) what monitoring is undertaken to ensure adherence to his Department's guidelines on the prescription of oral contraceptives to teenage girls. [10487]

  Ms Jowell
  In March 1986, health circular HC(86)1 was issued to health authorities giving guidance on the provision of contraceptive advice and treatment to young people under 16, and to the circumstances in which such advice and treatment can be given without parental knowledge or consent. The circular sets out the criteria upon which a doctor or health professional must be satisfied before prescribing contraception. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  The Department of Health's guidance, and professional advice produced by organisations such as the BMA, make it clear that doctors must try to persuade a young person who is unwilling to allow parents or general practitioners to be informed of the importance of doing so. The General Medical Council has also issued guidelines for GPs on this issue. We will be discussing with the health professions and voluntary sector the development of standards to build upon good practice in contraceptive advice and treatment for young people.

  Care Definitions
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 430, for what reasons he is unable to define (a) top quality primary care (b) continuing care and (c) mental health in (i) quantitative and (ii) qualitative terms. [11054]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 8 July at column 429, in which we defined the characteristics of top quality care.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) cervical smear tests were performed, (b) abnormalities were discovered and (c) colposcopies were performed at the end of the last three years; and what estimate he has made of the number of lives saved as a result. [10806]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available information for the years 1993–94 to 1995–96—the latest available—is given in the tables. The Department of Health does not collect figures on the number of colposcopies performed.

  (a) Number of cervical smears examined by pathology laboratories in England

  align="right">Thousands

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1994–96

  Number of cervical smears examined by pathology laboratories

  4,477

  4,505

  4,593

  Source:

  Form KC61

  (b) Number of abnormalities discovered

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number of abnormal test results1

  328

  353

  361

  Notes:

  1 Inadequate smears are excluded. Abnormal results are all tests which did not shown as negative.

  The number of deaths from cervical cancer (England) fell from 1,532 in 1992 to 1,256 in 1995 (Source: Office for National Statistics).

  Source:

  Form KC61.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which his Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available.
  [10731]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has a contract with Chessington Computer Services Ltd. to provide a full on line payroll service using the standard payment input and retrieval system. This service costs £500,000 per year. The Department's pay unit inputs all data to the system and provides an inquiry service to staff. The cost of this service in 1997–98 is £321.365.

  Health Authorities (Local Accountability)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make health authorities more accountable to local communities. [10757]

  Mr. Milburn
  Those appointed to serve on health authority boards, in the future, will be more representative of the community they serve. They will have to live in the area, show a commitment to the national health service and will include more users of the NHS, carers and people from the voluntary sector who can speak with a community voice.

  Nominations for these posts will be sought from local authorities and local Members of Parliament as well as through advertisements to be placed in the autumn.

  Essential Small Pharmacy Scheme
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the essential small pharmacies scheme on the numbers of rural pharmacies; [11151]

  (2) how many pharmacies in England received payment under the essential small pharmacy scheme in (a) 1994 and (b) 1997 broken down into (i) metropolitan boroughs, (ii) shire counties and (iii) London; [11149]

  (3) what proposals he has to support rural pharmacies. [11150]

  Mr. Milburn
  The essential small pharmacy scheme exists to provide financial support to pharmacies located more than 1 km from the next nearest pharmacy and which dispense fewer than 18,636 national health service prescriptions in a year. Rural pharmacies can take advantage of the scheme.

  The pharmacies in the scheme are split into metropolitan boroughs and shire counties as set out in the table.

  30 September 1994

  30 September 1996

  England and Wales

  283

  276

  England

  257

  249

  of which located in:

  Metropolitan boroughs

  34

  36

  Shire counties

  197

  179

  London

  26

  34

  Wales

  26

  27

  Community Nurses (Transport Allowance)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the uprating of transport allowances to community nurses. [11467]

  Mr. Milburn
  Allowances for national health service staff on national terms and conditions of service are set by the General Whitley Council for the NHS which
  383
  consists of management and staff side representatives,The council has no plans at present to increase these allowances, which are reviewed annually.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of health

  align="center">Health expenditure

  align="right">£000

  Region

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  1,654,441

  1,667,915

  1,625,681

  1,834,342

  1,922,756

  1,975,788

  Yorkshire

  1,897,024

  1,908,545

  1,971,506

  2,082,642

  2,207,164

  2,254,133

  Trent

  2,352,359

  2,370,817

  2,459,676

  2,586,300

  2,766,696

  2,889,449

  East Anglian

  1,020,235

  1,036,598

  1,080,732

  1,117,149

  1,177,201

  1,209,022

  North West Thames

  2,002,319

  2,008,209

  2,029,999

  2,207,220

  2,309,131

  2,345,558

  North East Thames

  2,363,970

  2,369,077

  2,388,128

  2,498,782

  2,582,445

  2,659,714

  South East Thames

  2,116,228

  2,116,221

  2,144,195

  2,323,880

  2,387,509

  2,437,249

  South West Thames

  1,703,160

  1,718,522

  1,691,941

  1,840,442

  1,917,278

  1,914,335

  Wessex

  1,444,796

  1,481,857

  1,496,302

  1,626,081

  1,701,846

  1,787,140

  Oxford

  1,166,629

  1,180,398

  1,202,070

  1,308,099

  1,364,260

  1,381,495

  South Western

  1,711,902

  1,744,496

  1,803,272

  1,907,288

  1,979,662

  2,061,574

  West Midlands

  2,628,077

  2,689,836

  2,800,994

  2,910,973

  3,039,145

  3,096,282

  Mersey

  1,330,474

  1,337,632

  1,390,558

  1,456,967

  1,531,795

  1,560,497

  North Western

  2,260,197

  2,234,973

  2,319,583

  2,403,029

  2,498,066

  2,568,840

  align="center">Health expenditure

  align="right">£000

  Region

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Northern and Yorkshire

  4,306,507

  4,457,663

  Trent

  2,966,426

  3,081,765

  Anglian and Oxford

  2,893,234

  3,010,874

  North Thames

  5,106,882

  5,322,736

  South Thames

  4,513,941

  4,769,425

  South and West

  4,040,864

  4,161,999

  West Midlands

  3,264,462

  3,441,572

  North West

  4,356,636

  4,492,029

  Source:

  Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities (England); annual accounts of family practitioner committees 1988–89 to 1990–91) and family health services authorities (1991–92 to 1995–96) (England).

  Note:

  1. The latest available figures are for 1995–96.

  2. The figures have been adjusted to 1997–98 prices.

  3. The figures are not directly comparable across all years due to changes in the organisational structure and different accounting policies.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will circulate to each hon. Member a copy of his letter on NHS break-even duties and trust deficit three-year bridging arrangements as set out in his letter of 15 July to trust directors of finance and health authorities. [11858]

  Mr. Milburn
  Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement of the level of health service inflation for the financial years(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97. [11045]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department of Health does not calculate health service inflation.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the impact on baseline expenditure planned for the NHS in 1998–99 of the increase in its gross 384
  expenditure at current prices in each of the regions in the United Kingdom in each year since 19979. [11165]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The figures available are shown in the tables. It is not possible to provide a regional analysis prior to 1988–89.

  domestic product deflation from 2.5 per cent. to 2.75 per cent.; and what percentage this figure constitutes of the planned increase in NHS spending in 1998–99; [11043]

  (2) what is the cost effect on his planned increase in NHS spending for 1998–99 of the change in the GDP deflator to 2.75 per cent. [11035]

  Mr. Milburn
  At the time of the November 1996 Budget, the gross domestic product deflator was forecast at 2 per cent. for 1998–99, and the previous Government planned a 0.25 per cent. real terms increase in expenditure on the national health service in England for that year. At the time of the July 1997 Budget, the Chancellor revised the gross domestic product deflator forecast to 2.75 per cent. for 1998–99.

  To maintain the previous Government's planned real terms increase in national health service expenditure in 1998–99 to take account of the change in deflator would have cost £258 million. This is just 14.5 per cent. of the Chancellor's planned increase of £1,775 million in expenditure on the national health service in 1998–99 following the July Budget, which allocated an extra £1 billion to the national health service in England, giving 2.35 per cent. real terms growth.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to paragraph 5.57 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98", what are the assumptions for efficiency savings for the financial year 1998–99. [11855]

  Mr. Milburn
  Decisions on the allocation between programmes of the additional resources for the national health service as announced in the Budget, and the related efficiency savings, have not yet been taken.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much he expects to save by reducing the administration and management costs of running the NHS in England for the financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02. [11037]
  385
  Mr. Milburn
  We have set targets to reduce the costs of managing the national health service by £100 million in 1997–98. This represents a significant investment into direct patient services and away from bureaucracy, in line with our commitment to ensure that more of every pound spent in the NHS goes on frontline patient services.

  The NHS Executive is working with the NHS to assess the scope for further reductions in the costs of managing the NHS in 1998–9 and beyond.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will express management and administrative staff costs for the financial years(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1997–98 as a percentage of total NHS expenditure. [11041]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information for 1997–98 is not available. The most recent information is set out in the table.

  Expenditure on the salaries and wages of general and senior managers and administration and clerical staff costs as a percentage of total revenue (HCHS) expenditure

  align="right">£000

  Expenditure 1992–93 (cash prices)

  Expenditure 1992–93 (1995–96 prices)

  Expenditure 1995–96 (cash prices)

  General and Senior Managers

  497,625

  534,449

  789,507

  Administrative and Clerical

  1,506,163

  1,617,619

  1,643,200

  Total G and S/A and C

  2,003,788

  2,152,068

  2,432,707

  Total revenue (HCHS) expenditure

  21,265,487

  22,839,133

  23,889,923

  Percentage of total HCHS spend on general and senior managers

  2.3 per cent.

  2.3 per cent.

  3.3 per cent.

  Percentage of total HCHS spend on administrative and clerical staff

  7.1 per cent.

  7.1 per cent.

  6.9 per cent.

  Percentage of total HCHS spend on general and senior managers and administrative and clerical staff

  9.4 per cent.

  9.4 per cent.

  10.2 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. Salaries and Wages figures are based upon gross costs and include Employers NI and Superannuation costs.

  2. The figures given are for hospital and community health services only. Family health services authorities and other health bodies are excluded as comparable figures are not collected centrally.

  Source:

  1. Annual financial returns of regional and district health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  2. Annual financial returns of NHS Trusts.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the effect on NHS expenditure in 1998–99 from the ending of payable tax credit to exempt institutions. [11360]

  Mr. Milburn
  The withdrawal of advance corporation tax credits has no effect on national health service expenditure. I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 14 July 1997, column 1.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the additional cost to the NHS in 1998–99 of an overall pay settlement under which wages and salaries rose by 1 per cent. above the gross domestic product deflator. [11274]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.
  386
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the administrative cost of the internal market of the NHS in 1996–97. [11276]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are no official estimates of the additional costs associated with the internal market, but independent commentators have in the past suggested a figure of £1.5 billion.

  The Government's job now is to ensure that effective action is taken to root out unnecessary bureaucracy to ensure that more of every pound spent in the national health service goes on front-line patient services.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of his recently announced increase in NHS spending for 1998–99 will be available for capital expenditure. [11277]

  Mr. Milburn
  Decisions on the allocation between programmes of the additional resources for the national health service announced in the Budget have yet to be decided.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the incidence of the use of moneys from the emergency contingency funds of NHS organisations in closing the deficits by the end of the current financial year; and what restrictions he intends to introduce; [11130]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the incidence of inter-trust health authority brokerage arrangements for the transfer of cash to meet the cost of closing deficits by the end of the current financial year; and what restrictions he intends to introduce; [11131]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the incidence of the rescheduling of debt payments by local NHS organisations to regional NHS executive organisations in seeking to meet the cost of closing deficits by the end of the current financial year; and what restrictions he intends to introduce. [11135]

  Mr. Milburn
  Whatever contingency funds are kept by national health service organisations are a matter for the management of the organisations concerned.

  The inter-year flexibility arrangements—otherwise known as brokerage—which apply to trusts and health authorities do not address the issue of income and expenditure deficits. Their purpose is to ensure maximum use of the cash resources made available to the NHS as a whole in the financial year. Where appropriate, the external financing limits of trusts and the cash limits of health authorities forecasting cash underspends are reduced and those of other trusts and health authorities requiring temporary in-year assistance with their cash flow are increased. These transactions are normally reversed the following year. These arrangements work well and there are no plans to restrict them.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the scale of the use of GP fundholder savings in helping health authorities and trusts meet closing of deficit requirements by the end of the current financial year; and what restrictions he intends to introduce. [11132]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him today.
  387
  Fundholders may voluntarily return to their health authority savings which they do not wish to spend. There is no system in place to enable fundholders to give their savings to trusts to meet deficits.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the scale of the exercise and what restrictions he intends to introduce in the case of the downward revaluation of NHS assets so as to reduce the 6 per cent. return on assets requirements in seeking to meet the costs of closing deficits by the end of the current financial year by NHS trusts. [11133]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is no exercise under way or planned to restrict or systematically reduce the valuation of national health service assets or the requirements to make a 6 per cent. return on them. Health authority allocations and trust prices have already been set on the basis of estimated capital charges for 1997–98 and there are no plans to change them.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the incidence of, and what restrictions he intends to introduce in the case of, the use of recovery strategy by health authorities and NHS trusts that carry forward deficits for(a) two and (b) three years that would otherwise have to be terminated by the end of the current financial year. [11134]

  Mr. Milburn
  In the normal course of events, health authorities and trusts can be expected to run small surpluses and deficits which even out over a run of years. Health authorities and trusts which have significant financial problems are required to draw up robust recovery plans for approval and monitoring by the National Health Service Executive. These recovery plans are kept under regular review.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure is planned by each health authority on(a) non-NHS purchases, (b) extra-contractual referrals and (c) medical negligence claims. [10422]

  Mr. Milburn
  I shall write to the hon. Member in due course with such information as is available.

  Melatonin
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to stop the sale of naturally occurring melatonin in health food shops; what representations he has received calling for chemical equivalents to be available on prescription; and what assessment he has made of the differences between the two products; [11629]

  (2) what proposals he has for making melatonin available as a dietary supplement without prescription. [11582]

  Mr. Milburn
  Melatonin, whatever its source, is an unlicensed medicinal product and available in the United Kingdom only on prescription. It is not a dietary supplement and the Medicines Control Agency has taken action to prevent its unlawful sale or supply in health food shops. If an application for a marketing authorisation for melatonin as a medicinal product is received, the MCA will assess the product in accordance with the law.

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997. [11826]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government have commissioned an independent and fundamental review of the current operations of the five statutory bodies created by the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997—the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and the National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting in the four countries of the United Kingdom.

  Independent Advisory Panel
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the independent advisory panel has determined the methods it will use to assess services within its terms of reference; and if he will make a statement. [11046]

  Mr. Milburn
  The independent advisory panel has been asked to report by the end of October. We expect it to inform us at that stage of the methods that it has used to assess services. The panel is independent. We do not expect to make any statement on its work until we have had an opportunity to consider its findings.

  NHS Efficiency Task Force
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the NHS efficiency task force will report; and if he will make a statement; [11059]

  (2) how many meetings the NHS efficiency task force will be holding in 1997–98; [11026]

  (3) how many times the national health service efficiency task force has met; [11030]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the measures of efficiency which the NHS efficiency task force will use to determine whether its recommendations lead to improve patient care. [11029]

  Mr. Milburn
  The task force will not produce a formal report, but its initial findings are expected to be available in the autumn. The task force met on 12 June. Individual task force members will work with Ministers and officials to take forward specific areas of work. The effectiveness of the task force will be measured by the short-term savings it is able to make in the national health service without detriment to patient care.

  Ministerial Absences
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for himself and each of his Ministers the dates when they plan to be absent from his Department's London office during the months of August and September. [11032]

  Ms Jowell
  Ministers are required to be available for Government business at all times. Subject to this overall requirement, they may take leave as and when Government business permits, and during this time a duty Minister is always available.

  NHS Planning
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the targets and standards listed on pages 17 to 21 of "Priorities and Planning Guidance for the NHS 1997–98" he plans to amend. [11024]

  Mr. Milburn
  A new priorities and planning guidance for the NHS will be published in due course. The Government will be publishing a Green Paper in the autumn outlining proposals for the new public health strategy.

  NHS Land and Buildings
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown of the land and buildings currently owned by the NHS. [11027]

  Mr. Milburn
  The buildings owned by the national health service occupy around 315,750,000 sq m on around 16,500 hectares of land owned by the NHS.

  Trust

  Consortia

  Constituent companies

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  Pentland

  Tarmac PFU Ltd.

  United Medical Enterprise Ltd.

  Tarmac Service Master Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  Octagon Healthcare Ltd.

  John Laing Group Plc Serco

  North Durham Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Consort Healthcare

  Balfour Beatty

  Initial Healthcare

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  United Healthcare

  Taylor Woodrow

  Healthcare Group

  Total Facilities Management

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  Catalyst Healthcare

  Bovis

  British Linen Bank

  RCO/Bovis Building Management

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  Health Management Group

  AMEC

  Building and Property Facilities Management Ltd.

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mercia Healthcare Ltd.

  Alfred McAlpine

  W. S. Atkins

  Gardner Merchant

  Norweb

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  No Consortium Name

  Siemens

  Bouygues Construction UK

  Bateman Healthcare Services Healthgate Ltd.

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Catalyst Healthcare

  Bovis

  British Linen Bank

  RCO/Bovis Building Management

  Bishop Auckland Hospitals NHS Trust

  No Consortium Name

  HCDA

  Shepherd Construction Ltd.

  Compass Bateman

  Siemens

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Atcare

  Alfred McAlpine

  W. S. Atkins

  United Utilities

  Sutcliffe Granada

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Aqumen

  Shepherd Construction Ltd.

  Mowlem Facilities Management Ltd.

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  The Hospital Company

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  Tarmac Servicemaster

  United Medical Enterprises Ltd.

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  United Healthcare

  Healthcare Group

  Taylor Woodrow

  Total Facilities Management

  Initial Healthcare Services

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the timetable of project targets for each of the major hospital PFI schemes selected to continue towards financial close under the first prioritisation exercise announced on 3 July. [11039]

  Mr. Milburn
  The selected private finance initiative schemes will have the objective of reaching an early and acceptable financial close over the next 18 months. Officials are now preparing programmes and milestones for these schemes.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which companies or consortiums are involved in each of the major hospital PFI schemes selected under his Department's first prioritisation exercise announced on 3 July. [11038]

  Mr. Milburn
  The consortiums and the constituent companies for the 14 major acute sector hospital PH schemes selected to continue towards financial close under the first prioritisation exercise are as follows:
  391
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the time table for construction for the Dartford and Gravesham and the Norfolk and Norwich PH hospital projects. [11040]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare national health service trust and Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust are working with their private sector partners to the following timetables for the construction of new hospitals under the private finance initiative:

  Start on site

  Completion

  Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  Spring 1998

  Spring 2001

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  August 1997

  Autumn 2000

  Clinical Services
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which clinical procedures currently do not meet his Department's clinical effectiveness criteria published in 1996. [11025]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health does not maintain lists of clinical procedure which have been judged to be "effective" or "ineffective".

  Health professionals must use research knowledge about potential effectiveness, their knowledge of the patient, and own professional judgment in order to decide what treatment to provide for any particular patient within their own particular circumstances. Some interventions will be appropriate for certain conditions, but inappropriate for others. The Department, in partnership with the health professions, sponsors a wide range of programmes which aim to bring forward the best possible research-based professional advice and make it available to the NHS.

  The Government intend that the NHS should concentrate on the quality and success of treatment, so that effectiveness of services, and outcomes for patients, will become the standards by which we measure the performance of health services.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement listing for each health authority(a) the clinical services which they purchase, (b) the amount spent on each service and (c) the amount spent per patient for each clinical service purchased in the last year for which figures are available. [11031]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the national health services purchased under these headings is not held centrally.

  Road Traffic Accident Costs
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional revenues he estimates will accrue to the NHS in 1997–8 from the recovery of moneys made by trusts under the terms of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997. [11042]

  Ms Jowell
  None. The Road Traffic Reduction Act does not give revenue-raising powers to national health service trusts.
  392
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if income received by an NHS trust from the recoupment of road traffic accident costs is repayable to purchasing authorities. [11279]

  Ms Jowell
  No, but trusts must take income from this source into account when setting the prices they charge to health authorities and general practitioner fundholders.

  Community Mental Health Nurses
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community mental health nurses were employed in the NHS in each year since 1979. [10904]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The number of community mental health nurses employed by the NHS in each year since 1981—the earliest year for which figures are available—is shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services nursing staff in the community psychiatric area of work1 England, at 30 September each year

  Whole time equivalents

  Year

  Nursing staff in the community psychiatric area1

  1981

  1,080

  1982

  1,270

  1983

  1,430

  1984

  1,880

  1985

  2,310

  1986

  2,530

  1987

  2,770

  1988

  3,080

  1989

  3,380

  1990

  3,600

  1991

  3,760

  1992

  4,210

  1993

  4,320

  1994

  4,760

  19952

  7,980

  19962

  10,530

  Notes:

  1 Includes qualified, unqualified and other nursing staff working in the community psychiatric area of work.

  2 A new classification of non-medical NHS staff was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Figures are rounded to the neared 10 whole-time equivalents.

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical work force census.

  NHS Cleaning, Catering and Laundry Services
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS spent on cleaning, catering and laundry services in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1996–97. [11275]

  Mr. Milburn
  For England, the information requested is available only for 1993–94, as shown in table 1, as a result of decisions by Conservative Ministers. In subsequent years, expenditure on cleaning cannot be separately identified and information on catering and laundry is confined to expenditure on external contracts as contained in table 2. Data for 1996–97 are not yet available.
  393

  Table 1: Expenditure by health authorities and NHS trusts on cleaning, catering and laundry services 1993–94—England

  Total £000

  Cleaning

  426,745

  Catering

  446,219

  Laundry

  164,693

  Table 2: Expenditure by health authorities and NHS trusts on external contract catering and laundry services—England

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Catering

  57,740

  50,939

  60,250

  Laundry

  24,367

  30,047

  34,581

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  2. The annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities, and the special health authorities of the London Postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Prescription Fraud
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish his estimates of the savings which will result from his efficiency scrutiny report into prescription fraud. [11278]

  Mr. Milburn
  We shall publish estimates of savings later this summer, once a full assessment of the recommendations has been completed.

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the spending on(a) NHS dentistry and (b) directly employed NHS community dentists for each of the last five years. [11091]

  Mr. Milburn
  Expenditure on general dental services, the main element of national health service dentistry, and the community dental services in England between 1992–93 and 1996–97 is given in the tables. For the CDS in 1994–95 and 1995–96, we have only information provided by NHS trusts on their expenditure on paediatric dental community services. Information for 1996–97 will not be available until the end of the year.

  align="center">Table 1: General dental service: Expenditure1 on NHS dentistry from the year ending 1992–93 to 1996–97

  Expenditure on general dental services, England

  align="right">£ million

  Year

  Gross expenditure

  Net expenditure

  1992–93

  1,306

  911

  1993–94

  1,222

  855

  1994–95

  1,279

  896

  1995–96

  1,290

  908

  1996–972

  1,323

  940

  1 Figures are based on appropriation accounts (cash) data. Net expenditure shows cost after taking account of patient charge income, net of refunds.

  2 Data for 1996–97 is provisional.

  394

  Table 2: Expenditure on the community dental service from year ending 1992–93 to 1993–94

  Expenditure on community dental services, England

  £ million

  Year

  Expenditure

  1992–931

  75.8

  1993–941

  78.5

  1 The figures include all expenditure on clinical dentists and medical anaesthetic staff together with technical dental and secretarial support staff. It also includes staff expenses, drugs, other medical supplies, and all furniture and equipment. Based on annual financial returns of regional and district health authorities, and NHS trusts.

  align="center">Table 3: Expenditure on the paediatric dental community service from year ending 1994–95 to 1995–96

  Expenditure on paediatric dental community service, England

  £ million

  Year

  Expenditure

  1994–951

  84.0

  1995–961

  88.4

  1 The figures include all expenditure on surveillance, investigation and treatment of dental disease in the community. It also includes overheads. The figure excludes dental health education and costs of fluoridation.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for himself and each of his Ministers(a) the official engagements, meetings and functions to which they are currently committed until the end of the year, (b) the dates of these engagements, (c) the activity the Ministers will be carrying out and (d) if a speech is being made; [11034]

  (2) if he will publish a list of the organisations he and each of his Ministers are committed to meeting between now and the end of the year; and when these meetings will take place. [11033]

  Mr. Dobson
  Ministers attend a variety of meetings, throughout the year which are all subject to confirmation. It would be open to misunderstanding and therefore potentially misleading to provide provisional details of meetings which may or may not take place.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health implications of the introduction of a banding of tobacco products duty related to their nicotine content; and if he will promote the introduction of such banding. [11269]

  Ms Jowell
  Given the recognised dangers of cigarettes, the best advice for smokers must always be to give up.

  We recognise that for many this is a difficult option, and how best to limit the addictive properties of cigarettes will be considered, together with all other aspects of harm reduction, in the preparation of the Government' s tobacco control strategy.

  Hove General Hospital
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he was informed of the closure of Hove general hospital by Brighton Health Care NHS trust; and if he will discuss this matter with the chief executive of the trust. [10789]
  395
  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The closure of Hove general hospital is part of the plan to redevelop the Royal Sussex county hospital agreed following public consultation in 1991, and approved by Ministers in March 1994. We understand that the services currently provided at the hospital will be provided from the new polyclinic in Hove and Brighton general hospital.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients waited over a year for hospital treatment in each year since 1979. [10907]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Information on patients waiting over a year for treatment on either an ordinary or day care basis at national health service hospitals in England is given in the table. The first information available for day cases was for 31 September 1987.

  Number of patients waiting more than 12 months as at 31 March:

  Ordinary admissions

  Day cases

  All in-patient cases

  Total number waiting

  1979

  185,195

  —

  —

  752,422

  1980

  196,983

  —

  —

  664,919

  1981

  180,774

  —

  —

  628,333

  1982

  175,554

  —

  —

  622,480

  1983

  198,546

  —

  —

  726,186

  1984

  194,614

  —

  —

  692,945

  1985

  171,197

  —

  —

  674,453

  1986

  161,326

  —

  —

  673,107

  1987

  162,273

  —

  —

  687,945

  1988

  182,161

  25,764

  207,925

  876,246

  1989

  193,952

  29,359

  223,311

  922,676

  1990

  175,777

  32,083

  207,860

  958,976

  1991

  145,109

  24,652

  169,761

  948,243

  1992

  69,000

  11,585

  80,585

  917,717

  1993

  45,195

  11,682

  56,877

  994,974

  1994

  46,404

  18,104

  64,508

  1,065,369

  1995

  21,750

  10,444

  32,194

  1,044,051

  1996

  3,686

  890

  4,576

  1,048,029

  1997

  20,732

  10,476

  31,208

  1,158,004

  Consultant Geriatricians
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant geriatricians were employed in the NHS in each year since 1979. [10903]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The latest available information is shown in the table.

  Whole-time equivalent of hospital medical consultant geriatricians in England at 30 September each year from 1979 to 1995

  Year

  Whole-time equivalent

  1979

  350

  1980

  370

  1981

  390

  1982

  400

  1983

  410

  1984

  420

  1985

  440

  1986

  480

  1987

  440

  1988

  460

  1989

  470

  1990

  490

  396

  Whole-time equivalent of hospital medical consultant geriatricians in England at 30 September each year from 1979 to 1995

  Year

  Whole-time equivalent

  1991

  510

  1992

  530

  1993

  550

  1994

  600

  1995

  640

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Data for 1996 are not yet available. We expect to have information available in September/October.

  3. The census is a snapshot at 30 September each year.

  Source:

  The Medical and Dental Workforce Census 30 September 1979 to 1995.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Shadow Tolling
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 July,Official Report, column 494, when he expects to be able to make an announcement on the outcome of the development work on shadow toll payment mechanisms. [10681]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 22 July,Official Report, column 494.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 July,Official Report, column 494, if he will announce whether the development work on payment mechanisms for possible application to the A40 west London approach and A13 Thames gateway design, build, finance and operate projects has been successful at the same time as he announces the results of the accelerated review. [10678]

  Ms Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced on 28 July the decisions reached on the accelerated review. As part of that statement, he announced that the A40 west London approach scheme had been cancelled and that the A13 Thames gateway DBFO would go ahead. The development work on the payment mechanisms for the A13 is not yet complete and will be announced in due course.

  Rail Cancellations
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of scheduled rail services were cancelled in each year since 1979. [11359]
  397
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: My Department holds information relating to the last five years. Trains booked to run, and trains actually run, for the five years ending 31 March 1997 were as follows:

  Year ending

  Trains booked

  Trains run

  Cancelled

  31 March 1993

  2,827,200

  2,790,400

  36,800 (1.30 per cent.)

  31 March 1994

  3,178,600

  3,141,600

  37,000 (1.17 per cent.)

  31 March 1995

  3,183,800

  3,144,800

  39,000 (1.22 per cent.)

  31 March 1996

  3,413,900

  3,374,000

  39,900 (1.17 per cent.)

  31 March 1997

  3,558,000

  3,525,600

  32,400 (0.91 per cent.)

  Source:

  DETR. Figures are rounded to the nearest 100 trains. Figures relate to scheduled domestic passenger services only. "Cancelled" trains are those which did not run at all, and do not include trains which terminated early, omitted certain station calls, or suffered extensive delay.

  Rail Network (Assaults)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what was the total number of assaults on(a) staff and (b) passengers on trains in each train operating company area in each of the last five years; [11464]

  (2) what was the total number of assaults on (a) staff and (b) passengers at stations in each train operating company area in each of the last five year. [11465]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not available in the format requested. However, the tables detail the number of notifiable assaults on staff and passengers on trains and at rail stations for 1994–95, 1995–96, and 1996–97, broken down by British Transport police area. Figures for previous years are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  align="center">1994–95

  BTP Area

  Public

  Staff

  London North

  190

  43

  North East

  44

  15

  Scotland

  140

  60

  North West

  124

  29

  Midlands

  25

  17

  South West

  39

  9

  London South

  258

  49

  London Underground

  346

  88

  Total

  1,166

  310

  align="center">1995–96

  BTP Area

  Public

  Staff

  London North

  175

  27

  North East

  33

  4

  Scotland

  118

  43

  North West

  92

  32

  Midlands

  26

  20

  South West

  38

  16

  London South

  293

  46

  London Underground

  298

  58

  Total

  1,073

  246

  398

  align="center">1996–97

  BTP Area

  Public

  Staff

  London North

  176

  30

  North East

  59

  11

  Scotland

  120

  40

  North West

  91

  23

  Midlands

  37

  8

  South West

  42

  7

  London South

  330

  48

  London Underground

  266

  47

  Total

  1,121

  214

  Assaults comprise grievous bodily harm, wounding and actual bodily harm offences only.

  London Underground (Accidents)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) fatal, (b) serious and (c) minor injuries were suffered by (i) passengers and (ii) employees of London Underground in each of the last 10 years. [11463]

  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  Information for the period 1987–95 was provided in a written answer to the hon. Member on 22 Janaury 1996,Official Report, column 23, based on statistics from London Underground. The reporting arrangements were changed in 1995 and statistics are no longer collected in the same manner. Information for financial year 1995–6—from "Railway Safety—HM Chief Inspector of Railways' report on the safety record of railways in Great Britain for 1995–96" copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library—is provided in the table.

  align="center">Injuries on the London Underground

  Fatal

  Serious

  Minor

  Total

  Passengers

  2

  39

  1,986

  2,027

  Employees

  0

  42

  408

  450

  Other

  0

  1

  5

  6

  Trespassers

  4

  4

  0

  8

  Suicides

  20

  8

  1

  29

  Total

  26

  94

  2,400

  2,520

  Figures for 1996–97 are currently being prepared and will be published by the Health and Safety Executive in the next few weeks.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce measures to regulate bus services to prevent bus companies from reducing services in order to increase profits. [10583]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Such matters will be considered as part of our review of bus policy announced by the Minister of Transport on 25 June.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposed withdrawal of the 726 bus route. [11332]
  399
  Ms Jackson
  I understand that the proposal to withdraw the service is currently the subject of consultation, but this is an operational matter for London Transport Buses.

  Stagecoach plc
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the(a) services and (b) staff conditions provided by Stagecoach plc from (i) the Stroud parliamentary constituency and (ii) elsewhere. [10584]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since 1 May, my Department has received 28 letters about Stagecoach bus services—of which four came from members of the public in my hon. Friend's constituency—and four letters, of which two came from my hon. Friend's constituency, about the staff conditions of Stagecoach group bus operators.

  Stagecoach does not operate any railway services to Stroud but, since 1 May, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising has received 59 letters about rail services provided by South West Trains Ltd. and Island Line Ltd., which are part of the Stagecoach group, and four letters about staff conditions. In addition, a further 38 letters have been received regarding restrictions on the carriage of bicycles on new rolling stock which is to be introduced.

  Marchioness Incident
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to hold a public inquiry into the sinking of the Marchioness. [11320]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are considering the case for a public inquiry into the disaster. I will be meeting representatives of the Marchioness Action Group next month to discuss their request for a full and open inquiry. An announcement will be made as soon as a decision is reached.

  Bus Fuel Duty
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the bus fuel duty rebate on the provision of an extensive bus transport network; [11265]

  (2) what plans he has to restore the full rate of rebate in respect of bus fuel duty; [11266]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the future of the bus fuel duty rebate. [11267]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I shall be considering all aspects of support for the bus industry with Treasury colleagues as part of the development of an integrated transport policy.

  Public Transport Use
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what means he intends to increase the number of journeys made on public transport. [11331]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Promoting the use of public transport needs to take place within the context of the integrated transport policy that the Government are developing. This is why an important part of the fundamental review of transport which my Department is currently taking forward is to examine ways of increasing the use of public transport, and or providing genuine choice to meet people's transport needs.

  A42/M42 (Subsidence)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what extent mining subsidence caused the damage being repaired currently on the A42/M42; and what is the total cost of this work. [11318]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 30 July 1997:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question about the A42/M42.
  The A42 runs through a mining area and some settlement was expected. The cost of levelling the road is about £500,000. Further settlement is possible.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received relating to opportunity slots at Heathrow. [11138]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since May, my Department has received two letters about opportunity slots, both from operators of business aircraft.

  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy towards opportunity slots at Heathrow. [11139]

  Ms Jackson
  The allocation of all slots at Heathrow is the responsibility of the slot co-ordinator, Airport Co-ordination Ltd., which is currently reviewing procedures for opportunity slots in conjunction with the airport operator Heathrow Airport Ltd. I will write to the my hon. Friend in due course on the Department's role.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many stations were open for passengers in(a) each of the last five years, (b) 1987, (c) 1982 and (d) 1977. [11574]
  401
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of stations open for passengers in Great Britain

  Number

  1977

  2,358

  1982

  2,369

  1987–88

  2,426

  1992–93

  2,482

  1993–94

  2,493

  1994–95

  2,506

  1995–96

  2,514

  1996–97

  2,515

  From 1985 onwards, station numbers were recorded at the end of the financial year.

  align="center">Route open for traffic: Great Britain

  align="right">Miles or percentage

  1977

  1982

  1987–88

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Route open for passenger traffic

  8,958

  8,932

  8,889

  8,882

  8,898

  8,924

  9,323

  9,344

  All routes:

  11,170

  10,708

  10,360

  10,272

  10,277

  10,281

  10,358

  10,358

  of which electrified

  2,341

  2,332

  2,582

  3,052

  3,088

  3,089

  3,208

  3,216

  Percentage

  21.0

  21.8

  24.9

  29.7

  30.0

  30.0

  31.0

  31.0

  Change in electrified route on the previous year

  20

  14

  0

  15

  36

  1

  119

  8

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the potential for combined heat and power after 2000. [12242]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are committed to increasing the UK's combined heat and power capacity beyond the previous Administration's target of 5,000 MW by 2000. A detailed review of the potential for CHP, carried out for my Department by the environment technology support unit, has now been published, and I will be placing a copy in the Library. The ETSU review indicates the cost-effective potential for CHP in industry, commerce and the public sector as being between 10,000 and 17,000 MW, depending on the assumptions made on future energy prices, users' required rate of return on investment, and other factors. The review does not cover additional CHP in the housing and community heating sectors, or the growth in renewable fuelled CHP, both of which are being separately reviewed.

  The Government are now reviewing their detailed CHP target for 2010, and will be consulting the Combined Heat and Power Association and others with an interest. They will make further detailed announcement as part of the new UK climate change programme, to be developed after the Kyoto conference.

  Environmental Impact Assessment
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to implement directive 97/11/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment; and if he will make a statement. [11981]

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was(a) the number of route miles open to passenger traffic on rail and (b) the total number of route miles on rail in (i) each of the last five years, (ii) 1987, (iii) 1982 and (iv) 1977; what percentage was electrified; what was the number of route miles electrified since the previous year; and what are the estimated figures for the next two years. [11575]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the table. No estimates are available for the next two years.

  Mr. Caborn
  The amended environmental impact assessment directive must be implemented by 14 March 1999. The new directive clarifies and amplifies the existing provisions for environmental assessment. It provides a useful tool for the proper assessment of any significant environmental effects of development. It also gives the public greater access to environmental information about such significant projects, enhancing local democracy and ensuring that the decision-making process is open and understood.

  I am pleased to announce today the start of the consultation exercise on the principles of implementing the new directive into the town and country planning and other consent systems in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Our aim in implementing the directive is to ensure that the process is beneficial in both environmental and economic terms. We are making a number of specific proposals for implementation which will further this aim while still maintaining the flexibility of the current system.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been sent to other Government Departments and to a wide range of business, government and environmental organisations. I have also placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Comments on the Government's proposals should be made to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions by 1 October 1997.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which Government projects have been subjected to an environmental impact assessment since 1 May. [10943]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Environmental impact assessment is a term used for various types of assessment under a wide range of regulatory regimes. For projects subject to environmental assessment under directive 85/337/EEC on
  403
  the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment—the EIA directive—since 1 May, no Government projects have come forward which require EA under three of the implementing regimes for which my Department is responsible: Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations; Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations; and the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) Rules. Information is not yet available for this period for planning applications under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations.

  Opencast Coal Extraction
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish a consultation paper on planning policy for opencast coal extraction; and if he will make a statement. [11978]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have published a consultation document on the review of planning policy for opencast coal today. This consultation paper, which deals with England only, seeks views on the issues raised by the 10-point plan for opencast coal, which we prepared when in opposition, and the options for change. In the light of responses to this consultation, the Government will decide what changes to policy guidance could and should be implemented in interim planning guidance, which would better be accommodated in a full review, planned for 1998, of minerals planning guidance note No. 3—coal mining and colliery spoil disposal—and whether any legislative changes are necessary. I intend that this should be a short but thorough inquiry to remove any uncertainty. Copies of the consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), expects to publish shortly an equivalent paper for Scotland.

  Oslo and Paris Convention
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) scope and (b) time scale of the review on the Government's environmental policies on issues relevant to the Ospar Commission. [11865]

  Angela Eagle
  The review of the UK positions on the issues to be discussed within the Ospar Commission covers all issues relevant to conclusions to be reached by the Commission. It will be completed in time to provide guidance for the UK representatives in those negotiations.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages of lifting the United Kingdom reservations on the Ospar draft objectives relating to(a) the continuous reduction of discharges of hazardous substances to the maritime area, (b) the continuous reduction of discharges of radioactive substances to the maritime area and (c) the prohibition of the dumping of offshore oil installations in the maritime area. [11859]
  404
  Angela Eagle
  UK reservations on aspects of these instruments are all covered by the review of the UK positions on the issues to be discussed within the Ospar Commission. As I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 23 July,Official Report, column 623, I shall write to that hon. Member outlining any major changes on which we decide, and will place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House. I will also send a copy of the letter to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor).

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which civil servants are dealing with the review of the Government's environmental policies on issues relevant to the Ospar commission. [11860]

  Angela Eagle
  All those civil servants who normally deal with the issues concerned.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which other(a) Government Departments and (b) organisations his Department is consulting in the review of the Government's environmental policies on issues relevant to the Ospar commission. [11866]

  Angela Eagle
  The review of the UK positions on the issues to be discussed within the Ospar Commission is to provide guidance for the representatives of the UK Government in those negotiations. All Government Departments with an interest are therefore being consulted. We are also taking into account such views as have been expressed by other organisations.

  Radioactive Waste (Edmonton)
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what amount of radioactive waste was handled by the Edmonton waste incinerator in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997; and what monitoring procedures are in place at the incinerator to monitor levels of radioactivity. [11044]

  Angela Eagle
  The disposal of radioactive waste is regulated in England and Wales by the Environment Agency under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. I understand that the agency has neither received an application for authorisation nor issued an authorisation under the Act to dispose of radioactive waste at the Edmonton waste incinerator.

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report published in January 1994 on the British Waterways Board. [11628]

  Angela Eagle
  The British Waterways Board has now made its third and final response to the report. I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions his Department will take to ensure that renovations carried
  405
  out by the release of capital receipts as proposed in the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill take into account the access needs of disabled people.[10859]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It will be for individual local authorities to determine their local needs and priorities when they apply resources released under the capital receipts initiative. When an authority decides to use resources to support new provision by registered social landlords, that development must meet the Housing Corporation's scheme development standards. These set out minimum requirements for new developments: all passenger lifts must be accessible to those in wheelchairs; new developments for the elderly must take account of their increasing accessibility needs; and properties built for wheelchair users must conform to standards agreed with the National Wheelchair Housing Association Group.

  Planning Decision (Cockermouth)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce a decision in relation to supermarket planning matters in Cockermouth. [10634]

  Nick Raynsford
  The Secretary of State expects to be able to announce his decision in respect of the four separate proposals for new large food stores in Cockermouth shortly.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce further environmental quality standards for the discharges of dangerous substances into controlled waters. [11852]

  Mr. Meacher
  A consultation paper proposing environmental quality standards for 13 dangerous substances, as defined in directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances

  Percentage of owner-occupied dwellings: End December: By standard statistical region in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom

  Region/Country

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  North

  46.0

  46.9

  47.7

  49.8

  51.1

  52.0

  53.0

  54.0

  55.2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  54.6

  56.0

  56.4

  57.8

  58.6

  59.2

  60.0

  60.9

  61.9

  East Midlands

  57.3

  59.0

  59.8

  61.3

  62.4

  63.1

  64.0

  65.0

  66.1

  East Anglia

  57.9

  58.2

  58.8

  60.1

  61.1

  62.1

  63.2

  64.4

  65.7

  Greater London

  48.5

  49.5

  49.8

  50.7

  51.5

  52.2

  53.0

  54.0

  54.9

  South East (excluding London)

  62.2

  63.8

  64.5

  65.6

  66.6

  67.6

  68.5

  69.5

  70.7

  South West

  63.2

  63.2

  63.9

  65.0

  65.9

  66.6

  67.5

  68.4

  69.6

  West Midlands

  55.8

  57.0

  57.4

  58.8

  59.9

  60.8

  61.5

  62.3

  63.4

  North West

  58.6

  59.3

  59.8

  61.0

  61.9

  62.4

  63.0

  63.8

  64.5

  England

  56.6

  57.7

  58.2

  59.5

  60.5

  61.3

  62.2

  63.2

  64.3

  Wales

  59.3

  59.5

  62.6

  64.2

  65.2

  66.0

  66.7

  66.7

  67.8

  Scotland

  35.3

  35.6

  36.4

  37.7

  39.1

  40.5

  41.8

  43.1

  44.6

  Northern Ireland

  51.9

  52.7

  54.0

  55.3

  56.8

  57.8

  59.9

  60.7

  62.1

  United Kingdom

  54.7

  55.4

  56.4

  57.7

  58.7

  59.6

  60.5

  61.5

  62.6

  Region/Country

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  North

  56.5

  58.0

  60.0

  60.4

  60.6

  60.8

  61.2

  61.3

  61.5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  63.2

  64.5

  65.2

  65.3

  65.3

  65.3

  65.4

  65.3

  65.5

  East Midlands

  67.5

  68.7

  70.0

  70.1

  70.2

  70.2

  70.4

  70.4

  70.6

  East Anglia

  67.3

  68.0

  68.2

  68.3

  68.4

  68.6

  68.9

  68.8

  69.0

  Greater London

  55.9

  56.8

  57.4

  57.3

  57.2

  57.2

  57.3

  57.0

  57.0

  406
  discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, was issued by my Department in March. It is planned to bring regulations containing these standards before the House shortly. In addition, I have today placed in the Library of the House a consultation paper proposing standards for a further 21 dangerous substances. These substances are:

  4-chloro3–-methyl-phenol

  2-chlorophenol

  2,4-dichlorophenol

  2,4 D (ester and non ester)

  1,1,1-trichloroethane

  1,1,2-trichloroethane

  bentazone

  benzene

  biphenyl

  chloronitrotoluenes

  demeton

  dimethoate

  linuron

  MCPA

  mecoprop

  mevinphos

  naphthalene

  omethoate

  toluene

  triazaphos

  and xylene

  Owner-occupied Housing
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of homes in(a) each region of the United Kingdom and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole were owner-occupied in each year since 1979. [11304]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The latest available estimates, as at end December for each year, are provided in the table.
  407

  Region/Country

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  South East (excluding London)

  72.1

  73.0

  73.3

  73.2

  73.2

  73.3

  73.5

  73.4

  73.5

  South West

  71.1

  72.1

  72.3

  72.2

  72.2

  72.3

  72.4

  72.3

  72.4

  West Midlands

  64.8

  66.1

  66.7

  66.9

  66.9

  67.1

  67.4

  67.4

  67.7

  North West

  65.4

  66.4

  67.0

  67.2

  67.3

  67.4

  67.7

  67.6

  67.8

  England

  65.6

  66.6

  67.1

  67.2

  67.2

  67.3

  67.5

  67.5

  67.6

  Wales

  69.1

  70.5

  70.8

  70.9

  71.0

  71.1

  71.1

  71.1

  71.3

  Scotland

  46.7

  49.1

  51.2

  52.4

  54.1

  55.5

  56.9

  57.9

  1—

  Northern Ireland

  62.8

  64.0

  65.3

  66.1

  66.8

  67.8

  2—

  68.6

  1—

  United Kingdom

  64.0

  65.2

  65.8

  66.0

  66.2

  66.4

  2—

  66.8

  1—

  1 Figures are not yet available.

  2 Tenure split not available.

  Water and Sewerage Companies (Investment)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been invested in the water and sewerage systems by each water and sewerage company in each year since 1987. [11195]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: Information on water and sewerage companies' investment since privatisation in 1989 is available in the report on the financial performance and capital investment of the water companies in England and Wales published annually by the Office of Water Services. The annual "Waterfacts", published by the Water Services Association, has shown figures for capital expenditure by water and sewerage companies and, before privatisation, by water authorities. Copies of both these publications are in the Library. Expenditure by water authorities included sums spent on some functions, including pollution control, flood protection and land drainage, which in 1989 were transferred to the National Rivers Authority.

  Hybrid Wolves
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what conditions his Department places upon the breeding and keeping of hybrid wolf dogs; [11095]

  (2) what regulations are in place to monitor the selling of hybrid wolf dogs; [11099]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact on public safety of the keeping of hybrid wolf dogs in residential areas; [11100]

  (4) what studies his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the breeding of hybrid wolf dogs. [11101]

  Angela Eagle
  The keeping of wolf hybrids is controlled under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Under the Act, a licence is required to keep such animals. The issuing of licences and the day-to-day administration of the Act are the responsibility of the relevant local authority.

  A licence can be issued only if a local authority is satisfied that it would not be against the public interest on grounds of safety or nuisance; that the applicant is a suitable person to hold a licence; that the proposed accommodation ensures that the animal will not escape, and is suitable from an animal welfare point of view. In issuing licences, local authorities may require restrictions
  408
  on the movement of the animal from the premises specified in the licence, and impose any other condition which they consider appropriate.

  The 1976 Act contains no provisions relating to the breeding or sale of wolf hybrids, and the Department has not undertaken any studies into their breeding. However, in replying to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 9 July 1997, Official Report, column 496, I indicated that the Department will be considering whether further guidance under the Act is required.

  Planning Process
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce statutory time limits for the planning process; and if he will make a statement. [11070]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Article 20 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 already specifies the time periods within which planning decisions should be taken and we have no plans to amend this aspect of the legislation. The responses to my Department's recent consultation paper on development plans confirmed the difficulty of setting a statutory timetable for the development plan process which would be appropriate to all authorities. However, certain parts of the process are already subject to time limits and we are considering the scope for extending this. We are also looking at the possibility of requiring authorities publicly to set target timetables for the adoption of their plans, for which they would be accountable locally.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he proposes to improve the procedures involved in taking planning decisions. [11069]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are currently considering what steps might be taken to speed up the planning process and will be announcing our conclusions in due course.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the number of changes of use that occur within use categories in planning terms. [10880]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, changes of use within individual use classes are not development, do not require planning permission and are therefore not recorded.
  409
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will allow objectors the right of appeal in planning matters. [10879]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no plans to extend the right of appeal to third parties in planning cases. It is for elected local authorities to act in the general public interest when determining planning applications. Planning legislation already provides extensive opportunities for members of the public and interested organisations to comment on both draft development plans and individual planning applications.

  Plastic Silage Wrap
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take measures to increase the quantity of waste silage wrap which goes for recycling. [11148]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on Monday 28 July 1997,Official Report, column 48. In addition, we are looking to see what further measures could be taken to increase the quantity of waste silage wrap which is recycled.

  Dry Stone Walls
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to(a) prevent the destruction and (b) encourage and improve maintenance of dry stone walls in England and Wales. [11153]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Jackson) on 9 July 1997,Official Report, column 495. Responsibility for dry stone walling in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many council estates have benefited from the estates renewal challenge fund. [10928]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Sixty-nine estates have received £316 million of funding under rounds 1 and 2 of the estates renewal challenge fund.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, by year, the number of applications for consent to release organisms genetically modified for ampicillin resistance that have been(a) granted and (b) rejected for the purposes of (i) field testing and (ii) marketing. [10975]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Since the coming into force of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, (i) seven applications to field test genetically modified organisms with the ampicillin-resistance gene, whether the gene be functional or not, have been granted a consent and, (ii) no applications for consent to market GMOs with
  410
  ampicillin-resistance gene have been received in Great Britain. The numbers by year for the field testing are as follows:

  Year

  Granted

  Rejected

  1993

  11

  0

  1994

  0

  0

  1995

  11+1

  0

  1996

  2

  0

  1997

  11+1

  0

  Applications marked 1 had a functional ampicillin resistance gene.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to tighten controls on the use of methyl bromide. [10967]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: EC regulation 3093/94 places a freeze on the production and consumption of methyl bromide at 1991 levels from 1995, and requires a further 25 per cent. cut from 1998. The Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer requires all developed countries to phase out methyl bromide by 2010, with cuts of 25 per cent. in 2001 and 50 per cent. in 2005.

  The controls on methyl bromide under the Montreal protocol will be reviewed at the ninth meeting of the parties in September. At the Environment Council in June, Environment Ministers agreed that the controls should be strengthened and that the European Community should propose that the phase-out date for developed countries should be advanced to 2005 subject to exemptions for critical uses. The Community will also propose that there should be an interim cut of 50 per cent. in 2001.

  Emissions
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the change in United Kingdom levels of emissions of(a) chlorofluorocarbons and (b) sulphur dioxide since 1979. [10980]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Total UK emissions of sulphur dioxide have decreased from 5,553,000 tonnes in 1979 to 2,365,000 tonnes in 1995, a reduction of 57 per cent.

  No information is collected on the level of emissions of CFCs, but information is held on the level of consumption. The earliest data are from 1986, when UK consumption was 58,357 tonnes. This decreased to 1,702 tonnes in 1995, a reduction of 97 per cent.

  Environmental and Nature Conservation Bodies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the role of environmental and nature conservation statutory bodies; which bodies will be subject to review; what will be the nature of the review; and what plans he has to consult non-governmental environmental organisations for their views. [10944]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the news release issued by the Deputy Prime Minister on 24 July about the reviews being undertaken by the Department,
  411
  which includes reviews on the environment, and countryside and rural policy. Copies of the news release have been placed in the House Libraries. Officials conducting the reviews will be interested to receive the views of outside bodies.

  Lorries (Noise Pollution)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to control noise pollution arising from refrigeration units on lorries. [10878]

  Angela Eagle
  Manufacturers of refrigeration equipment are aware of the nuisance these devices can cause and I understand that noisier separate engines are slowly being replaced with more advanced systems which can be considerably quieter.

  Traffic commissioners have powers when considering applications for operator licences to impose operational restrictions on a licence to minimise disturbance and, in certain circumstances, may refuse a licence.

  Under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, local authorities have wide-ranging powers to prevent or abate noise nuisance which is prejudicial to health or a common law nuisance and which is emitted from vehicles, machinery and equipment in the street. If a local authority officer judges a problem complained about to be a "statutory nuisance" then he must serve an abatement notice on the person responsible or, where that person cannot be found, by placing the notice on the vehicle. Failure to comply with the terms of a noise abatement notice can result in substantial penalties.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which his Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10729]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department authorises Chessington Computer Services Ltd., through its standard payroll input and retrieval system—SPIRE—to undertake the full range of payroll functions covering all staff including those in next steps agencies and, until 1 August those in the Government Office for the Regions.

  My Department also carries out payroll work on behalf of the Office of the Rail Regulator and the London Regional Passengers Committee. Total costs in 1996–97, inclusive of internal and Chessington charges, were £2.04 million.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 July,Official Report, column 624, if he will provide an exemplification for each local authority of the revenue support grant they would receive in 1998–99 based on the figures for local government published in
  412
  the Red Book and adjusted by the Budget, applying the distribution methodology used in the 1997–98 settlement. [10953]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is not possible to provide direct exemplifications in the manner requested. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made stated additions to net total standard spending and net aggregate external funding in the Budget. However, no decision has yet been made on the level of revenue support grant for 1998–99. A decision on the level of revenue support grant for 1998–99 will be announced later this year.

  Millennium Experience (Land Decontamination)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures(a) have been taken and (b) will be taken to decontaminate the land which is planned to be developed for the Millennium Experience at Greenwich; and what estimate he has made of the cost of these measures. [10596]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the terms of the conveyance of the site, British Gas, the original owners, has completed the statutory decontamination of the site of the dome to the requirements of the Environment Agency and the London borough of Greenwich. British Gas contractors are now undertaking the statutory decontamination of the balance of the exhibition site and this work should be completed in October 1997. The cost of the decontamination is borne entirely by British Gas and is commercially confidential.

  English Partnerships has completed the development remediation of the site of the dome and will let a contract in August to complete the development remediation of the balance of the exhibition site. English Partnerships' current forecast expenditure on development remediation of the exhibition site is £13 million.

  Lophelia Pertusa
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will draw up a species action plan for the conservation of lophelia pertusa. [10657]

  Angela Eagle
  The UK biodiversity group is currently reviewing the species and habitats for which further national biodiversity action plans should be prepared. It is expected to provide its advice to Government in the autumn.

  Water Savings Trust
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to implement the recommendation made by the Environment Committee in its report on water conservation and supply—first report, HC 42, 1996–97, concerning the establishment of a water savings trust. [10648]

  Angela Eagle
  Water companies are under a duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers and have prepared water efficiency plans to implement that duty. In addition, the Government have recently established the environmental task force, which may have a role to play, for example through the installation of water-saving devices and promotion of water efficiency. The Government are keen that all complementary
  413
  avenues, including the possibility of a water saving trust, are investigated, but do not envisage offering any assistance at this stage.

  Housing Sites
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will encourage local authorities to identify brown-field sites for new housing wherever possible; and if he will make a statement. [10525]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government already encourage local authorities to reuse previously developed land for housing wherever possible. Some of these sites arise from redevelopment opportunities which cannot always be foreseen, which means that they cannot always be identified in advance. It is therefore important that local planning authorities have clear policies in their development plans that encourage the reuse of previously developed land for housing, particularly within urban areas. This is also an issue that was raised by respondents to last November's Green Paper on household growth; we are currently considering all the responses received.

  Oil Extraction (Atlantic Frontier)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications of his policy and targets in respect of carbon dioxide emissions for proposals to extract oil in the Atlantic frontier area. [10658]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have set themselves challenging domestic target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. from 1990 levels by 2010 and we are currently looking at the policy options which could contribute towards that target.

  The most recent projections for carbon dioxide emissions, published in energy paper No. 65, take account of likely developments in oil and gas production in the United Kingdom. In 1995, carbon dioxide emissions from oil and gas production accounted for 3.5 per cent. of national carbon dioxide emissions. Any oil production which might take place in the Atlantic frontier is not expected to result in a significant increase or decrease in national carbon dioxide emissions.

  Out-of-town Developments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of future planning applications for out-of-town developments; and if he will make a statement. [10606]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's planning policy guidance on this issue remains as set out in PPG6: Town Centres and Retail Developments and PPG 13: Transport.

  Multilateral Investment Agreement
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the latest draft of the multilateral agreement on investment with the Government's policies on sustainable development. [10655]
  414
  Angela Eagle
  The Government are working hard for a successful conclusion to the negotiations on a multilateral agreement on investment. Our objective is to achieve an agreement with the highest possible standards of investor protection, liberalisation of investment regimes, and effective dispute settlement. But this Government would not agree to an MAI which damages our commitments to sustainable development, environmental protection and core labour standards. We shall therefore continue to work to ensure that these commitments are properly reflected in the agreement.

  Waterway Speed Limits
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost of changing waterway speed limits and speed limit signs to metric measurements to(a) public funds, (b) the owners of motor boats and cruisers on the Broads and (c) the Broads Authority. [10336]

  Angela Eagle
  No nationwide assessment has been made. The Broads Authority estimates the total costs of changing its speed limits and signs to metric would be some £54,000. Since the cost of operating the Broads Authority's navigations is financed by users, these costs would be recovered from boaters via their licence fees.

  Leasehold Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress on the reform of leasehold valuation tribunals. [10241]

  Ms Armstrong
  Service charge disputes are renowned for causing distress and misery to many leaseholders who have, in the past, had to go to court to challenge unreasonable charges, risking unknown and potentially high costs.

  From 1 September, leaseholders will be able to apply to the 11 leasehold valuation tribunals, which will use their specialist professional expertise towards settling these disputes. Leaseholders' risks of incurring large legal bills will also be limited, because the tribunals do not award costs. Applicants will, however, have to pay a fee of up to £500 for each application, although the tribunals will have a discretion to require the other party to the dispute to reimburse this fee.

  As well as challenging service charge bills for costs already incurred by the landlord, leaseholders will now be able to challenge works which are proposed. Landlords too will be able to seek a determination that the costs or scope of the proposed works are reasonable before they start spending money.

  Bad management is a continuing problem for tenants of flats, who will now also be able to apply to the tribunal instead of the county court for the appointment of a new manager, if the tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has determined, or is likely to demand excessive service charges, or that he has failed to comply with a relevant provision of one of the three approved codes of management practice available.

  National Sustainable Development Plan
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to introduce an annual national sustainable development plan; and if he will make a statement. [8673]

  Angela Eagle
  Defining objectives and indicators, and reporting on them, will be an important element of the Government's approach to sustainable development, and we will be considering how to do so in ways which are regular, transparent and accessible.

  Offshore Supplies Office
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the members of the board of the Offshore Supplies Office; and which companies they represent. [8989]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Offshore Supplies Office was renamed the Oil, Gas and petrochemicals Supplies Office but has retained the acronym "OSO". The OSO is advised by a board drawn from the private sector and appointed by Ministers in line with Nolan procedures. Board members give their advice as individuals and do not formally represent their employers.

  The following is a list of board members and their employers:

  Sir Ian Wood CBE, Chairman and Managing Director, John Wood Group Plc.

  Sir Alan Cockshaw, Chairman, AMEC Plc.

  Paul Barron, Managing Director, Industrial Gas Turbine Group, European Gas

  Turbines Ltd.

  John Blythe, Chairman and Chief Executive, Foster Wheeler Ltd.

  Tom Cardale, Managing Director, Consolidated Supply Management Ltd.

  Rodney Chase, Chief Executive Officer, BP Exploration Company Ltd.

  Dr. Chris Fay, Chairman and Chief Executive, Shell UK Ltd.

  John Hood, Managing Director, Weir Pumps Ltd.

  Alasdair Locke, Chairman, Abbot Group

  David Moorhouse, Chief Executive, Kvaerner John Brown

  David Varney, Chief Executive, BG Plc

  Health and Safety (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of prosecutions which the Health and Safety Executive has brought against each local authority in England in the last three years; and how many have resulted in convictions. [3252]

  Angela Eagle
  [pursuant to her reply, 12 June 1997, c. 520–22]: In the three years from 1993–94 to 1995–96 the Health and Safety Executive prosecuted local authorities in England 63 times for 92 alleged breaches of health and safety law and secured 87 convictions. Details from HSE's records are shown in the table. This table
  416
  supersedes that given in the answer to this question on 12 June. Figures for the year April 1996 to March 1997 are not yet available.

  Summary of prosecutions—local authorities in England 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96

  Local authority

  Occasions prosecuted

  Breaches alleged

  Convictions

  Wealden District Council

  1

  1

  1

  East Sussex County Council

  1

  1

  1

  London Borough of Islington

  1

  1

  1

  St. Edmundsbury Borough Council

  2

  3

  3

  Norwich City Council

  1

  2

  2

  Stevenage Borough Council

  1

  1

  1

  Salford Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  1

  1

  Lancaster City Council

  1

  1

  1

  Sunderland City Council

  1

  2

  2

  Avon County Council

  1

  1

  1

  Somerset County Council

  1

  1

  0

  London Borough of Southwark

  1

  2

  1

  City of Birmingham

  1

  1

  1

  Bromsgrove District Council

  2

  2

  2

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  1

  1

  Harrogate District Council

  1

  1

  1

  Manchester City Council

  2

  3

  3

  Durham County Council

  1

  1

  1

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  2

  2

  Gateshead Borough Council

  1

  1

  1

  Cleveland County Council

  1

  1

  1

  Lancashire County Council

  1

  1

  1

  Hertfordshire County Council

  3

  7

  7

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  1

  1

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  2

  2

  2

  Corporation of London

  2

  4

  4

  Elmbridge Borough Council

  1

  1

  1

  Surrey County Council

  1

  2

  2

  London Borough of Harrow

  1

  4

  4

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  1

  1

  1

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  1

  1

  1

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  3

  2

  Berkshire County Council

  1

  2

  2

  London Borough of Greenwich

  1

  1

  1

  London Borough of Hackney

  1

  1

  1

  Tameside Metropolitan District Council

  1

  2

  2

  Cornwall County Council

  1

  1

  1

  London Borough of Haringey

  2

  2

  2

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  1

  1

  1

  Colchester Borough Council

  1

  1

  1

  London Borough of Redbridge

  1

  1

  1

  Bedford Borough Council

  1

  3

  3

  Wrekin District Council

  1

  2

  1

  Nottingham City Council

  1

  1

  1

  Newark and Sherwood District Council

  1

  1

  1

  Humberside County Council

  2

  4

  3

  Liverpool City Council

  1

  1

  1

  London Borough of Enfield

  1

  2

  2

  Uttlesford District Council

  1

  2

  2

  Sandwell Metropolitan District Council

  1

  2

  2

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  1

  2

  2

  Grimsby Borough Council

  1

  1

  1

  Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

  1

  1

  1

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  1

  1

  Totals

  63

  92

  87

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.) The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Grade—Took the Oath.

Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg):My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend a meeting of the Cabinet tomorrow morning, 31st July, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Message from the Queen: Succession to the Crown
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your Address and, relying on the wisdom of my Parliament, I desire that my prerogative and interest in so far as they relate to the succession to the Crown should not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for the removal of any distinction between the sexes in determining the succession to the Crown".

Palestine: British Mandate
2.32 p.m.
Lord Chalfont:asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to commemorate the 50th anniversary, in 1998, of the end of the British mandate in Palestine.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, there are no current plans. But the Government do not have a policy not to mark the end of the mandate. If there are proposals from my noble friends or elsewhere, we should be pleased to consider them.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Would Her Majesty's Government consider it appropriate to commemorate the servicemen and servicewomen who risked, and in some cases lost, their lives during the period of the mandate?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not aware of any previous ceremonies to commemorate those who served in Palestine from 1945
168
to 1948, but it is of course important to remember them. As I said, the Government will be interested to hear proposals to commemorate those who served.
Lord Molloy:My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the League of Nations' mandate was carried out brilliantly by the British forces for the benefit of the Arab people, and the Palestinian people in particular? An excellent job was done by our forces. Should not we at least commemorate their wonderful endeavours in this House as well as in the country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I am sure that we all look forward to suggestions from my noble friend and indeed others as to a suitable way in which to commemorate the end of the mandate.
Lord Beloff:My Lords, the mandate was a very positive factor in that part of the world and the servicemen and women, both military and civil, who served the mandate over its period certainly deserve commemoration. However, would not the most appropriate step be for Her Majesty's Government to join next year in the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the State of Israel, remembering that it managed to overcome the hostility of Ernest Bevin, who wished to strangle it at birth?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, we enjoy good relations with our friends in Israel and we would wish to mark the anniversary in an appropriate manner.
Viscount Waverley:My Lords, does the Minister support the idea of a meeting of all religious faiths, including divisions of those faiths, to debate the future of Jerusalem, thereby taking the initiative away from the political arena?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, we must listen very carefully to the advice that we receive about ways in which to take forward the issue of the status of Jerusalem. Pending agreement, we recognise de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem but we consider East Jerusalem to be illegally occupied. We recognise no de jure sovereignty over the city. I am sure that the whole House joins with me in condolence for those who lost their lives in the appalling bomb outrage only a few hours ago in Jerusale.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford:My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the great Ernest Bevin did not want to strangle the State of Israel? He made it possible for it to come into being. The allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is absolutely contrary to the truth.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I do not believe that I am in a position to debate with noble Lords an event that happened before my birth. But the UK's responsibilities in the region continued beyond the end of the mandate. It has been important since the end of the mandate to work for a just and lasting peace

169
in the region between Israel and her neighbours. That is the aim towards which Her Majesty's Government are currently working.
Lord Chesham:My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government commemorate the 50th anniversary by increasing current levels of UK bilateral assistance to the Palestinian national authority as a measure of goodwill?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will look at any sensible suggestions which are brought forward from the noble Lord and his friends about ways in which we might commemorate the passing of the mandate and, indeed, ways in which we might commemorate the 50th anniversary of the State of Israel next year.
Lord Chalfont:My Lords, I appreciate the very sympathetic and positive response from the Minister to my Question. Therefore, I do not wish to prolong this discussion unnecessarily. Following up the question from the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, does she agree that commemorating the end of the mandate and celebrating the birth of the State of Israel need not be mutually exclusive? Could not both those events be commemorated?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I hope that nothing that I have said will be interpreted as the opposite of that. Both events are possible. They are not mutually exclusive.

Gibraltar: Frontier Delays
2.38 p.m.
Lord Merrivale:asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been any recent improvement regarding restrictions and delays at the land frontier between Gibraltar and Spain.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, there has been a recent improvement at the frontier following representations to the Spanish authorities by the British ambassador in Madrid. But the situation remains unpredictable. We continue to urge Spain to provide sufficient staff to ensure that delays are kept to a minimum.
Lord Merrivale:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In effect, her final remarks cover the question that I primarily intended to ask. In view of the fact that the Government continue to urge Spain to provide sufficient staff to reduce delays and keep them to a minimum, do the Government propose to use more persuasive arguments, particularly in regard to channelling traffic on a single lane basis, which at times
170
causes great delays? Have the Government sought the lifting of weekend restrictions on commercial goods and increasing hours for clearance on weekdays?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, we take very seriously the delays at the Spanish-Gibraltar frontier and frequently raise the matter with the Spanish authorities when the delays become disproportionate. We welcome any measure introduced by the Spanish authorities aimed at reducing the delays, including the intention to implement their proposal for red and green channels in the way suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton:My Lords, bearing in mind the desirability in the long term of reaching a solution to this problem, recognising that this country no longer has a major strategic interest in Gibraltar, and acknowledging that Spain and Britain are now partners in the European Union and allies in NATO, will the Minister consider looking with a favourable eye on the proposals allegedly put forward by the Spanish Foreign Minister for an arrangement whereby Britain and Spain exercise joint sovereignty over Gibraltar rather in the way that similar authorities have successfully exercised sovereignty over Andorra for hundreds of years?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, we look for co-operation with our friends in Spain over the question of Gibraltar. But the Government stand firmly by the commitment made to the people of Gibraltar in the preamble to Gibraltar's 1969 constitution that we will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. I hope that that makes the position clear.
Lord Whaddon:My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend says. However, can she tell the House whether there is any more optimistic news regarding the recognition by Spain of passports issued in Gibraltar?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, at the moment British passports are issued in Gibraltar under the authority of the Governor acting as the personal representative of the Queen. The Spanish Foreign Minister has given a public assurance that Spain has never questioned and will not do so in future the right of Gibraltarians to freedom of movement in the EU. Of course we expect the Spanish to respect that.
Lord Monson:My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a few months ago the commanding officer of the British forces in Gibraltar, who was wearing civilian clothes but carrying documents which made it perfectly clear who he was, was stopped at the border and treated in the most abusive and insulting manner by the Spanish border guards, as, more recently, was Lady Luce, the wife of the present Governor? Can the Minister say what representations have been made to Spain over the disgraceful behaviour of its frontier police?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I regret that I was not aware of the incidents the noble Lord has outlined to the House. If indeed they took place, they were not only disgraceful, but entirely contrary to what the Spanish Government told us would be the case. I shall look into the incidents described by the noble Lord and write to him.
Baroness Hooper:My Lords, I welcome the report from the noble Baroness that the border situation has improved. But can she assure us that the British Government will continue to make every effort to improve this exasperating situation, not only on a bilateral basis, but also through the appropriate channels in the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. This is a matter that exercises the British Government. It is a subject that we raise frequently in our contacts with our friends in Spain and of course it is a matter that we discuss with the Spanish through EU channels. We shall continue to do so while the issue causes concern, not only in your Lordships' House but elsewhere.
Lord St. John of Bletso:My Lords, I support the strong stand that the Foreign Secretary took at the recent NATO summit in saying that Her Majesty's Government would only support Spain's full membership of NATO should the Spanish authorities lift restrictions on landing rights in Gibraltar. However, will the Minister ensure that such landing rights apply to military as well as to civilian aircraft?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I regret that I am not in a position to answer the detailed question regarding military aircraft landing rights. That is a matter which is probably more appropriately put to my noble friend Lord Gilbert in the Ministry of Defence. I shall write to the Ministry of Defence on the noble Lord's behalf and ask for a view on the specific point relating to military aircraft.
Lord Chesham:My Lords, can the Minister give us any idea as to whether there are plans to hold a further constitutional conference on Gibraltar in the near future?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, there are no plans to hold a specific constitutional conference on Gibraltar in the near future. The whole question of our relationship with the dependent territories is one that the Government are considering. As the noble Lord probably knows, a ministerial group meets to consider the dependent territories. That group recently met and will be meeting again in the autumn. The question of Gibraltar's constitution is considered by that group along with the constitutions of other dependent territories, as I am sure the noble Lord will be aware. The arrangements of the previous administration have not changed.
Lord Merrivale:My Lords, in view of the strong stand taken by the Foreign Secretary in Madrid on
172
8th July regarding NATO matters, can the Minister assure us that he will take as strong a stand on other Gibraltar matters?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I hope that I have given the House every indication that the Foreign Secretary will continue to take a strong stand over the question of Gibraltar whenever and wherever he discusses the matter.

Food Standards Agency
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox:asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend that the Food Standards Agency should have lay representation on all its expert committees.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue):My Lords, the Government believe that lay representatives will have an important role to play in the expert committees advising the Food Standards Agency, and will be considering that further as plans for the agency are developed.
Baroness Wilcox:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that assurance. I listened carefully to hear whether he said yes, there would be lay representation on expert committees or yes, he would consider there being lay representation on the committees. I imagine I heard the former rather than the latter. I understand that a paper will come to this House and the agency will not be up and running until 1999. I hope to ask many Questions on this subject during the intervening time.
Will the Minister agree that it is the wall that has been raised between expert committees and consumer committees in the past that has caused so much trouble, whereby it is thought that consumers are not intelligent enough to work out what the experts will say on the expert committees? Does he agree that the committee on novel foods and processes and the committee on medical aspects of food and nutritional policy have made a valuable contribution to the work thus far?
Lord Donoughue:My Lords, one of the consolations of this office is being able to look forward to exchanges with the noble Baroness. My right honourable friend in another place is making a response today to a Written Question setting out many of our proposals for the new food safety agency. We totally support in principle the idea of lay representation. The response will state that openness and transparency will be one of the agency's principal criteria. As for its advisory committees, it will be an independent agency and I assume that it will begin by involving the existing advisory committees, mainly from MAFF. We propose to strengthen the role of the Food Advisory Committee, which already has two lay representatives and will have more.
As the noble Baroness knows, there are seven MAFF advisory committees relating to food, four of which already have lay representatives. The three that do not,

173
including the Veterinary Products Committee and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, are looking actively and canvassing for members. I hope that by the end of the year they will have been announced. SEAC is also looking actively. I hope by the end of the year all seven committees will have lay representatives. We are looking for members and hope that Members of this House, including the noble Baroness, will submit names of representatives. I am not accountable to the Department of Health for the committees, especially the, three notorious acronyms—COT, COM and COC. At present those committees do not have lay representatives.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes:My Lords, will the Minister note that I entirely support what my noble friend Lady Wilcox said? A modicum of common sense is worth a great deal of expertise. It is very much lacking at present in food nutritional labelling, which is unintelligible. The problem is exacerbated by the dreadful Euro-numbers—indeed, one needs a translation book to understand them. Will he undertake that, if a comprehensible and easily intelligible form of nutritional labelling is proposed by the committee, he will not allow our partners in the Community to override it?
Lord Donoughue:My Lords, that is one of the many reasons why we support lay representatives. Labelling will be a factor. I am sure that the new committee will bear in mind what the noble Baroness has said. On the European role, food safety is basically a Europe-determined policy.
The Countess of Mar:My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how much I appreciate the breath of fresh air that seems to be flowing through MAFF at the moment? As well as bringing lay membership into the committees, are the Government considering broadening the scientific base, as I suggested in my speech of 24th June when I suggested that perhaps young Ph.Ds might also be co-opted onto the committees?
Lord Donoughue:My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for her kind remarks. I also thank her because she has been responsible for much of the momentum in changing the situation and attitudes in this area. We are looking at broadening the scientific base—I know this is an area in which she is interested. We propose to put lay members very shortly on two subordinate committees to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides—the Pesticides Forum and the Working Party on Pesticide Residues.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil:My Lords, desirable though the aims of this agency may be, is the noble Lord aware that there is a certain amount of apprehension that its activities could develop into a nightmare of officiousness and bureaucracy? I just wonder which of the noble Lord's colleagues will have the rather difficult task of restraining the excessive enthusiasm that the agency may be tempted to show.
Lord Donoughue:My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concerns. We do not wish that to be the outcome. The basic reason for the agency is that we need greater monitoring and enforcement in the area of food safety. It is a matter of great public concern. It is my honourable friend the Minister for Food Safety who will have particular responsibility. I shall certainly have a word with him about what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Ezra:My Lords, as someone who has been involved in trading standards for many years, I am delighted that the Government will be pursuing the concept of setting up a Food Standards Agency. Will it be supplied with an effective monitoring force to ensure that its decisions are properly carried out?
Lord Donoughue:Yes, my Lords, monitoring is firmly at the forefront of its agenda. It may help the House if I point out that we have had a consultation period. There were 630 or so responses. There will be a White Paper in the autumn which will be followed by another consultation period. We will then publish the Bill, which will be brought before the House as soon as parliamentary time is available.
Lord Lucas:My Lords, we entirely support the announcements that the noble Lord has made today and the direction in which his policy is taking us, as he will know from our contribution to the debate of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Can he confirm that he will be repeating in this House, as we made a practice of doing, the Answer to the Written Question given in another place so that on these important matters this House can be informed as well as another place? Does he intend that the Food Standards Agency should follow the American practice whereby all points made to the agency in the course of its consultations—by interest groups, individuals and so on—are answered on the record point by point so that they are available for public scrutiny?
Lord Donoughue:My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support, previously and now. That has been helpful to us in shifting any possible resistance that may have existed. There will be a Written Answer to the Question tabled in this House. As to the American practices, a number of the aspects of the working of the proposed Food Standards Agency are still under active consideration. However, the suggestion he has made could be a fruitful one. I am sure we shall look at it.

Kenya: Constitutional Reform
2.56 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood:asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the continued refusal of the Government of Kenya to carry out constitutional reforms, as promised by President Moi in 1995, to create the essential conditions for fair and free democratic elections later this year.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, we have made clear to the Government of Kenya our views on the conditions that need to be established to ensure that the forthcoming presidential and legislative elections are free and fair. All those who wish to vote must be able to exercise their choice freely; all those who wish to stand must be able to do so; the electorate must have access to all the information needed to make an informed choice; and people must be free to come together in support of their preferred candidate.
Lord Steel of Aikwood:My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware that my Question was prompted by the appalling outrage earlier this month when the police invaded the Anglican cathedral in Nairobi and disrupted an ecumenical service. If I speak strongly on the matter it is because among those injured was the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, who is my father's direct linear successor in that office. Does she recognise that those who were present on that occasion, and indeed the nine people who died in particular, were asking for the most elementary and universally desirable constitutional reforms; namely, the appointment of an independent electoral commission, the independence of the judiciary, the independence of broadcasting from government control and the repeal of the Public Order Acts to allow freedom of public assembly? Will she accept that, sadly, no progress has been made on these issues since the last election in 1992?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, all parties in Kenya have a responsibility to refrain from confrontation and violence. We are urging all parties to resolve their differences by dialogue. We condemned the excessive force used by the Kenyan police when dispersing the pro-reform demonstrations. We and the other major aid donors share many concerns of those who have been campaigning within Kenya. However, we have stayed out of the constitutional debate because we have seen this very substantially as a matter for the Kenyans themselves.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey:My Lords, what dialogue are the noble Baroness and her colleagues pursuing with the Kenyan Council of Churches, which seems to be the only body that has really pushed forward for the very things the noble Lord, Lord Steel, mentioned just now? It seems to us that that would be the most profitable way forward. But they cannot do it alone. Will she ask her European Union colleagues to be as outspoken as we hope her colleague, Mr. Lloyd, was on his recent visit to Nairobi? Will she tell us more about what happened in Mr. Lloyd's talks with President Moi?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, the noble Baroness has covered many points. We want to have dialogue with all those in Kenya who want to see the constitution working properly. We wish to use the auspices of the EU and the other aid donors to Kenya in order to take this important dialogue forward
176
The noble Baroness asked some specific questions about Mr. Lloyd's visit to Kenya between 25th and 28th June. When he was there Mr. Lloyd called for elections where all those who want to vote can exercise their choice freely and where those who want to stand are given the opportunity to do so; and he asked that the electorate has access through the media to all the information needed to make a free choice and that people can come together freely in order to support the candidate of their choice. Donors have made it clear to the Kenyan Government the measures that they believe are necessary to meet these conditions. We shall monitor closely developments in Kenya against that background, seeking, of course, concrete progress.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford:My Lords, I understand that the Kenyan Government have uttered some kind of apology for the attack on Christian clergymen in All Saints Anglican Cathedral in Nairobi, but no attempt has yet been made to bring the policemen involved to account. Can the Minister suggest any other ways in which Her Majesty's Government can bring pressure to bear on the Kenyan Government to respect basic civil liberties, particularly in relation to that outrageous event?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, we have welcomed President Moi's offer of dialogue on these matters, particularly on legislative and constitutional issues. We recognise the argument put forward by the Kenyan Opposition that the intention expressed by President Moi must be translated into action. We strongly believe that the early implementation of measures to ensure conditions for free and fair elections and to bring to justice those responsible for the outrage to which the right Reverend Prelate referred are also very important aspects of the problems. Mr. Lloyd has written again to the Kenyans urging that action be taken on these points.
Lord Avebury:My Lords, if the arrangements made for the forthcoming elections are manifestly incompatible with the Harare Declaration, will the Government undertake to raise the matter in CHOGM and Edinburgh this October?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, the Harare principles of good governance will be an important question at CHOGM. The focus will be primarily on military governments, such as those of Nigeria and Sierra Leone. However, we will make use of the opportunity to seek concerted pressure, with our Commonwealth partners, for the Kenyan Government to ensure the full implementation of the Harare principles in the way which the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Steel of Aikwood:My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister just a little further—
The Duke of Norfolk:: My Lords, are the Government aware that many of us took part in the giving of independence to Kenya and set up an army,

177
which is training here at this moment, with officers being exchanged? Is the Minister further aware that we left a fine police force in command? Are they disconcerted at the weakness of the Government's reply? Kenya is a member of the Commonwealth. We would like to know that the Government are exerting every possible effort to bring the present Kenyan Government—I shall not name it specifically—to book? We know that terrible things are happening. There is no law and order at the frontiers. Does the Minister agree that what happened in the cathedral is typical of what is liable to happen—perhaps even worse—unless more is done?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, of course we are aware of the deplorable position which the noble Duke has outlined. Jointly with our EU partners, the United States and other major partners we have been in dialogue with the Kenyan Government on the measures that should be taken to remedy the situation. Indeed, I outlined in some detail to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, what had been said by my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd and the letter that he has sent following that up. So we are doing things bilaterally, through our partners in the EU and also with our partners who are aid donors. We also plan to do so at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting later this year.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Carter:My Lords, I hope that the House will allow me to make a few comments on the speakers' list for this afternoon's debate. In the time-honoured traditions of your Lordships' House, and in view of the importance of the subject matter of the debate, no Motion to time limit this afternoon's debate has been moved. However, there are 37 names on the speakers' list. If Members of both Front Benches who open and wind up the debate follow the normal conventions for a five-hour debate, and if all noble Lords speaking from the Back Benches do so for no more than 10 minutes, the debate will last approximately six hours. I hope that all noble Lords will bear that in mind as the debate proceeds.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank:My Lords, before the Government Chief Whip sits down, perhaps I may be allowed to ask him a question which has a direct bearing on today's business. I understand that a very important Statement is being made in another place today by the Home Secretary. A request was received by the Government Chief Whip from my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that the Statement should be repeated in your Lordships' House. The Government Chief Whip may tell me that I am wrong, but I have been told that the Official Opposition chose not to have the Statement made in this House, presumably because it did not wish to examine the Government on matters on which there has been at least a degree of harmony in
178
the past. As a result of the absence of anxiety that the matter should be raised in this House there is to be no Statement.
I hope that the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House will reflect seriously on the implications of this matter. I believe that there are precedents for Statements being made at the request of these Benches, but even were that not the case, this Government have shown no undue respect for precedent when it is an impediment to moving forward with a radical momentum. If that is indeed the case, surely, whatever the precedents may be—I see that the Lord Privy Seal is seeking to examine them rapidly—I put it to the Government Chief Whip and to your Lordships that the Statement should be made in this House.
If the Government Chief Whip's view prevails it will not only be the Opposition Benches which are denied the opportunity of raising the matters, but also the Cross Benches. If the noble Lord is not immediately prepared to say that the Statement will be repeated here, will he be kind enough to take the matter away and come back to the House in an hour's time and then, I hope, indicate a willingness to do so? This is a very important question of principle. It is also an important issue of parliamentary scrutiny and open government.
Lord Carter:My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his question. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is making a Statement today in another place on improving the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The usual soundings were taken this morning and it was decided that, although this is a matter of importance, the subject matter of your Lordships' debate this afternoon is also of great importance. I hope that the House will agree that it is in the interests of the whole House that we proceed expeditiously with this afternoon's business.
I am sure that noble Lords who wish to raise the subject of my right honourable friend's Statement will be able to do so by other means when the House returns after the summer Recess. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I point out that when the Procedure Committee of this House considered the repetition of Statements, it observed the arguments that were put to it and which persuaded the Committee that,
"Statements repeated in the Lords are an unwelcome interruption of the main business of the day. They cause unforeseen delays in the daily timetable to the inconvenience of noble Lords".
The Earl of Longford:My Lords, perhaps I may say how distressed I am to hear that statement. This is an issue of vital importance in the penal history of this country, but we are not to have the Statement here. I am horrified.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank:My Lords, I do not believe that the situation should be allowed to continue. I understand the arguments, but representations were clearly made. It is plain that there are Members of your Lordships' House who believe that this matter should be debated. What bothers me about the Chief Whip's statement is that his closing remarks imply that if at any time a Statement of

179
importance made in another place is likely to interrupt the important business of this House that Statement may not be made. Indeed, all the business of your Lordships' House is important. If that principle is to be exercised by the Government, sometimes with the connivance of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, your Lordships will be denied the opportunity to examine the Government on very important issues of principle.
Lord Strathclyde:My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, seems to be making a bit of a meal of this. I am sure that the whole House is aware of the importance of the Statement that is to be made in another place. Indeed, the issue has exercised this House over very many years. However, I agree with the proposition put forward by the Government Chief Whip that today, a day set aside to deal with the White Papers on Scotland and on Wales, we should concentrate entirely on those matters. I am sure that there will be an opportunity to discuss the subject to which the Statement relates. Indeed, given the representations made this afternoon, the Government may well regard it as a matter of importance that when we return they should find time for a debate. As for this afternoon, I very much support the view taken by the Government and I hope that we shall be able to carry on with the debate.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank:My Lords
—
Noble Lords:Order!
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank:Your Lordships must put up with my persistence—
Noble Lords:No!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard):My Lords—
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank:My Lords, I am on my feet—
Noble Lords:Order!
Lord Richard:My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is a man with a grievance. It might be just as well to let him get that grievance off his chest and then we can get on with the business of the House.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank:My Lords, I appreciate the courtesy of those remarks of the Lord Privy Seal. I have no grievance except on behalf of this House and our parliamentary system. What I was going to say—this is a constructive response to the Opposition Chief Whip—is that, given the argument he put forward for not interrupting today's business, what is to prevent the Statement being made tomorrow?
Lord Carter:My Lords, I shall consider that suggestion through the usual channels.
Lord Marsh:My Lords, in the light of that question from the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, may those of us who are hoping to speak in the debate tomorrow ask whether the Liberal Democrat Party and the Labour Party, since they are now as one, could not deal with these domestic matters between themselves and in their own time?
Lord Carter:My Lords, in response to the suggestion that we are at one, all I can say is that you could have fooled me in the last five minutes. I agree entirely that this is a matter that should be discussed through the usual channels.
Baroness Williams of Crosby:My Lords, may I say on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches—
Noble Lords:No!
Baroness Williams of Crosby:My Lords, may I say on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches very briefly that this is a matter which has engaged this House time and again and that among its Members this House has people who have a very deep knowledge of the penal system? That is why I share the view that there should be an early opportunity for this matter to be considered by the House.

British Nationality (St. Helena) Bill [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh:My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the acquisition of British citizenship by persons having connections with St. Helena. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Iveagh.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Finance Bill
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 31st July to enable the Finance Bill to be taken through all its stages that day—(Lord Richard.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices Select Committee Report
3.14 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham):My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 20).—(The Chairman Of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Sub-Committee membership
Viscount Devonport was appointed to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee.
2. House of Lords Annual Report and Accounts
The Committee approved the Annual Report and Accounts for 1996–97.
3. The Lord Chancellor's Residence
The Committee were informed that the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee had approved the estimated cost of £650,000, outside the current Estimate, for a major refurbishment of the Lord Chancellor's Residence.
4. Mobile telephones and pagers
The Committee agreed rules for the use of mobile telephones and pagers in the House of Lords as follows:
1. Mobile telephones—

(a) must be silent in all public areas of the House including the Chamber.

(b) may only be used in offices or where conventional telephones are located: and

(c) may not be used while moving around the House.

2. There should be no bar to the use of pagers, provided that they are silent. In the Chamber and Committees of the House pagers must not be used to transmit messages to Peers for use in proceedings.
5. Staff pay
The Committee took note with approval of the 1997 pay awards to House of Lords staff; the cost to the paybill will be 3.8%.
6. Lords' Reimbursement Allowances
The Committee were informed of the annual up-rating of the motor mileage allowance in line with the increase in the Retail Price Index. From 1 April 1997, the rate of motor mileage allowance was increased by 1.2 pence to 48.4 pence for the first 20,000 miles for the period to 31 March 1998. Further mileage in this period would be payable at the rate of 22.3 pence per mile.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe:My Lords, I should like to thank the committee for its work and begin by saying that any remarks that I may make now are no reflection on its work which is very much appreciated by us all.
I wish to make two points. I refer first to paragraph 3 which is headed "The Lord Chancellor's Residence". On 14th July, speaking out against "fat cat lawyers" the Lord Chancellor pleased many of us who have pursued that subject for some time. The noble and learned Lord earned our gratitude for that courageous attack, but he will have earned the enmity of a number of vested interests. Therefore we have a duty to protect the Lord Chancellor. I believe that far more detail should be given about the sum of two-thirds of a million pounds which is to be spent on his residence. We learn from the minutes of the Offices Committee meeting on 22nd July that that expenditure had not been considered before the
182
general election, so clearly something serious must have been discovered—possibly severe structural damage or large quantities of asbestos. More detail would be most helpful.
I turn now to paragraph 4 which is headed "Mobile telephones and pagers". It may interest your Lordships to know that when I was Government Chief Whip in another place in a rather more difficult situation than pertains no—in fact, we lost our majority when the late John Stonehouse crossed the Floor and by the time the Government finally fell, he was out on parole—it was suggested that Members should be issued with bleepers or pagers. I refused—for three reasons. First, I thought that my beleaguered troops were entitled to some privacy from time to time. Secondly, I felt that bleepers would diminish their stature as public representatives. Thirdly, I thought that the possession of bleepers might dilute Members' sense of personal responsibility in some way. I may well have been wrong. I am an old-fashioned, out-of-date chap, but one wonders what heights Gladstone, Disraeli and Sir Winston Churchill might have reached had they been on the end of a pager, being monitored to stay on message.
Where is the impetus coming from for all these changes we are being asked to absorb? On 19th March the Offices Committee before this one spoke about the enhanced message service, mentioning a consultation process that was to last until September 1997. Here we are, the Recess about to start, and no mention in the report of that consultation process or how it is going. What we have managed to elicit is that the review by the consultants, Deloitte and Touche, cost £144,667.18 of which your Lordships' share is £23,725.41. The cost is entirely made up of consultants' time and averages out at over £1,100 per day.
Who is this to help? I sometimes wonder because, as your Lordships will know, over the past three weeks the tickertape just outside the Prince's Chamber has been on the blink. Most of the time it has not been working at all. When it first broke down a notice appeared saying, "Engineer called". That put me in mind of St. Matthew Chapter 22, verse 14:
"many are called, but few are chosen",
because it seems to have had no visible effect. As a minister's son, I feel that occasionally I must work in such references to show that my childhood was not entirely wasted.
After all these weeks of inactivity, with that acme of timing which makes our public servants the envy of the world, lo and behold within three hours of this possible debate in your Lordships' House, the engineers are installing a new tape. I hardly need add that they are having difficulty with it, but no doubt we shall be well serviced through the Recess.
I wonder whether there is a hidden agenda and whether we are being softened up in order to be taken over by the spin doctors. I believe that when such

183
reports are before us we have a duty to scrutinise them carefully because the reputation of this House is very valuable and must be protected.
Baroness Macleod of Borve:My Lords, perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, and ask the Chairman of Committees to help us on the second line of paragraph 3. It is most important. We want to know on what all that money is to be spent.
Referring to paragraph 6, all of us must buy petrol for our vehicles, especially those of us who are disabled. Why have the Government put up the cost of petrol by 4p. but allowed your Lordships only 1.2p? Perhaps the Chairman of Committees can assist.
Lord Glenamara:My Lords, when the noble Lord comes to reply, can he inform the House how many students' maintenance fees and tuition fees it will take to pay for the improvements to the Lord Chancellor's house?
The Chairman of Committees:My Lords, I find it difficult to compete with some of the humour from which we have benefited this afternoon. I deal first with one of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. She referred to the uprating of the allowance referred to in paragraph 6. In accordance with the normal practices of your Lordships' House and committees, that has been uprated according to the retail prices index. It has been done in the normal way. I cannot add anything to that save to assure the noble Baroness that the customary practice has been followed.
The noble Lords, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe and Lord Glenamara, and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, asked about the Lord Chancellor's residence. I understand the point that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, but as always this is a matter of priorities. I have never been too impressed by the argument that there are other items on which money can be spent and that in the view of some people money can be better spent in one way than in another. The trouble with that argument is that, if one follows it to its logical conclusion, one will never do anything about any matters other than those singled out for priority treatment for perfectly understandable reasons by particular individuals. For example, it might be said that the arts would suffer completely because some argued that there were better ways of spending that money. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, has indicated that money should be spent in a particular way. It may well be that provision is being made in another direction. That is not my responsibility. But that is a laudable aim anyway.
As far as concerns expenditure on the Lord Chancellor's residence, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, said that this matter was not raised before the election. It has been raised since the election, and I for one am grateful that it has. This is a very worthwhile and necessary project. It has been thoroughly examined by the relevant committees of your Lordships' House: first, the Administration and Works Sub-Committee; secondly, the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee; and, thirdly, the Offices Committee which has made this
184
report to your Lordships' House. All of those committees took the view that this matter had to be dealt with.
Turning to the reasons for the expenditure, the intention is to restore the Lord Chancellor's residence to the highest standards of decoration expected by the Palace, by your Lordships and another place in accordance with the original designs of Pugin. This has not been done for many years. I understand that at least 10 years have elapsed since a major renovation of the Lord Chancellor's residence has taken place. It is high time that this work was undertaken, and I wholeheartedly commend it to your Lordships.
I have already said that the matter was thoroughly examined by all the relevant committees of your Lordships' House. There was no dissenting voice in any of those committees on this proposal. I for one am grateful to the leaderships (if I may put it collectively) in the various parts of your Lordships' House, including the Convenorship of the Cross-Bench Peers, for their support in those committees. There was no doubt that this refurbishment was regarded as necessary. This must also be seen in a positive and productive light for another reason. All of those committees very much welcomed the proposal of the Lord Chancellor that the residence should be opened up to visitors. Your Lordships may feel that that is desirable. In addition, as a result of his good offices, major paintings will be made available if the project goes ahead in the Lord Chancellor's residence. I understand that one very valuable major painting would also be made available to your Lordships' House on which our own curator of works of art is very keen.
It is right to deal with the detail of these matters as Members of your Lordships' House seek to do this afternoon and as the various committees have sought to do. But one should not lose sight of the major long-term objective when considering matters of this kind. The Palace of Westminster is a great historic institution and a place of great constitutional significance. Both architecturally and in various ways it is a place of national and international significance. So long as I am given by your Lordships the opportunity to play a small part in the guardianship—I hesitate to say "custodianship"—of this place, I believe that we owe a duty to future generations to ensure that this historic and important building is maintained in such a way that future generations can appreciate it. That is one fundamental point that should be borne in mind.
I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time because of the weighty business that is to follow. However, points have been raised that I should seek to deal with. As to the ticker-tape machine, on my way back from lunch I observed that that matter was being attended to. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for answering his own question before I have a chance to get to it.
The only other point that I make about pagers and telephones is that these matters have been before your Lordships in the past. As recommended by your Lordships' committees, these proposals are intended to benefit your Lordships. I would be trespassing a little

185
if I went into any detail this afternoon on the message improvement system because that does not arise in this House. However, I mention in passing—because I promised a noble Baroness that I would raise this matter if I had an opportunity to do so—the question of pagers, in particular vibrating pagers. Following our previous session on vibrating pagers and the hazards of placing them in some pockets, I was asked by the noble Baroness to whom I have just referred on my way out of the Chamber why I had not suggested what ladies might do with them. I informed the noble Baroness that I had that in mind but thought that I had said quite enough about it already. I believed that they could be placed in handbags if outfits did not have any pockets, but I was informed that they would not attract attention to themselves as well as they would in pockets. I am not so sure about that. The sight of a trembling handbag, perhaps beside a noble Baroness on the Government Front Bench—I use that only as an example—is a vision too menacing to contemplate. To some timid souls such as I, that might be an indication that the handbag was about to be wielded with violence. I would not want to suggest that that is something that should happen. I hope that, apart from that, I have to some extent dealt with the points that have been raised. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Devolution in Scotland and Wales
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel) rose to move, That this House take note of the Government's proposals for devolution in Scotland and in Wales, as set out in the White Papers Scotland's Parliament(Cm 3658) and A Voice for Wales—the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly(Cm 3718).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the publication of the two White Papers and today's debate mark the second stage in the process of establishing devolved government in Scotland and Wales. Our proposals are part of a wider package to revitalise and modernise our democracy throughout the United Kingdom. Increasingly there has been a recognition that people are comfortable and confident with the idea that decisions which more directly impact on their daily lives and the lives of their communities are best made at a local level, below that of the national government. In the recent past while so many countries have developed forms of regional government, in the United Kingdom we have become an increasingly centralised state—the people feel removed and detached from the process of government, government itself becomes more incapable of responding to local priorities and local values, there is a lack of identity with and confidence in our political structures.
I appreciate that some Members of your Lordships' House are sincerely of the view that devolution poses a threat to the Union—that it is somehow the first step on
186
the slippery slope to separation. If I believed that I would oppose devolution with as much vigour as I now support it. Surely all the evidence is that it is the withholding of power, and a failure to recognise regional identities and aspirations, that cause states to fragment. We have just to look around this building to see the evidence of that.
I have said on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House that I am firmly of the view that devolution is the means of strengthening the Union. As someone who was born and brought up in England, pursued part of my education in Wales and has lived most of my life in Scotland—I value the Union. But the enduring value of the Union is its diversity. What we are doing is to establish structures of government that not only recognise that diversity but encourage it to flourish.
I have said that our proposals are about revitalising democracy. We want to revitalise democracy in Scotland and Wales. We want a new politics—a more inclusive, consensual politics. That is why we have devised an electoral system that will ensure the fair representation of different points of view. That is why we place great emphasis on a strong committee system and ideas like pre-legislative scrutiny.
While many of us enjoy the theatre of this House and of Parliament generally, we must recognise that many of our fellow citizens are deterred from making a contribution to public life by the adversarial and confrontational style of our politics. We want to change that. We want a parliament and an assembly in which a much wider range of people will wish to participate. And I say quite frankly that that is going to be a challenge to the political parties and their selection processes, but we need it. The two countries—the UK—need a change in their approach to politics. It needs a more inclusive legislature.
I do not intend to repeat all the details of our proposals in my opening remarks. That ground was well covered in the Statements last week, and in any case many noble Lords will have read the White Papers—some no doubt in fine detail! I should instead like to make some general comments and to pick up in general terms some of the key issues which were raised in this House last week and subsequently in the press.
Since we are debating both White Papers today, let me explain first why our proposals for Scotland and Wales differ. The Government were elected several weeks ago on a manifesto to modernise the constitution of the UK and to put devolution at the heart of that programme of reform. But we were clear while in opposition and remain clear in government that it would not be right to force every part of the UK into a common mould. As I said, the great value of the UK is its diversity, and our structures of government should recognise that.
We believe that each part of the UK and each region of England should be offered a scheme tailored to its needs and which takes account of its unique history and circumstances. Scotland and Wales differ in many respects. So, we believe, do the wishes of the people in the two countries. We are thus offering Wales and

187
Scotland measures that are appropriate to their own circumstances and aspirations. It will be for the people of Wales and Scotland to decide on our proposals in the September referendums, subject, of course, to the referendums Bill receiving Royal Assent tomorrow. We shall see then whether we have interpreted their wishes correctly.
There has been a great deal of reflection since the publication of the White Papers on the whole question of sovereignty, particularly in Scotland. That is clearly an important subject but I believe that some of the reaction has been a little over-excited. People appear to have been looking rather too closely for some hidden meaning. I can assure noble Lords that there is none. The position is in fact quite straightforward. Since we are proposing devolution rather than separatism, Westminster will remain sovereign, but the Government are proposing that sovereignty should be exercised in a new way—in a devolved way.
If the referendums result in votes in favour of our proposals, and the legislation is enacted, the people of Scotland and Wales will be given the opportunity to have a bigger say in their own affairs. If the parliament and the assembly prove effective and popular I do not believe that a future UK Government would seek to force through changes to the terms of the settlement, still less to abolish them. Indeed, the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition last weekend suggest that even opponents of devolution now accept that endorsement of our proposals in the referendums will represent a moral entrenchment much more effective than any attempt at statutory entrenchment.
There has been a great deal of comment, some of it misinformed or alarmist, about the tax-varying powers we are proposing for the Scottish parliament. Let me—I hope for the last time—put the record straight. What we are proposing is that the Scottish parliament will have the power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by a maximum of 3p. This would currently allow the parliament to levy or reduce income tax in Scotland by up to around £450 million, which is about 3 per cent. of the Scottish Office budget.
That may sound a small proportion, but the power will be an enormously important counterpart to the parliament's law-making powers. It means that the Scottish parliament will have to make real financial choices. Does it increase income tax, decrease it or keep it the same? Or, put another way, does it increase public expenditure in Scotland, decrease it or make no change? It is because the Scottish parliament will have to address those questions alongside its legislative proposals that it will be more directly accountable to the people it serves.
We decided that the power should be limited to varying income tax because there was no practical alternative. All the other options presented serious difficulties. And our proposal strikes a balance. On the one hand, the power needs to be sufficient to make a difference; on the other, it must not put Scotland's people and Scotland's industry at an unfair disadvantage compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I am convinced that we have got that balance right.
We have also built two specific safeguards into the system. First, any Scottish tax variation will not affect income from savings and dividends. Secondly, if the Scottish parliament's power to raise £450 million—index-linked to preserve its real value—were eroded by future changes to the UK tax structure, its ability to raise or forgo this sum through the tax system would be preserved. But we have made it clear that if or when such conditions did arise we would expect the £450 million to be levied or reduced in broadly the same way as our current proposals for 3p, on the basic rate.
The White Paper made it clear, by ruling out other tax options, that the power would remain restricted to income tax. There is no hidden agenda; just the delivery of our manifesto commitment to give the Scottish parliament a defined and limited tax-varying power. That is precisely what our proposals achieve.
There have been a number of questions about our proposals for giving the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly a say in European Union affairs. The Scottish executive and parliament and the Welsh assembly will have important roles in relation to European Union issues. Both will have the fullest and most direct possible involvement in policy formation within the United Kingdom. The Scottish and Welsh voices must be heard in relevant negotiations on policy at all levels, up to and including the Council of Ministers, including the scope to speak directly on behalf of the UK in those negotiations. Both Scotland and Wales will gain from an input to the position of one of the European Union's largest and, under this Government, most influential member states. The United Kingdom gains from the more thoroughly considered and debated nature of that input compared to the present.
If the Scottish executive is to participate as fully as the Government believe it should in EU matters, we propose that Scottish executive Ministers should attend relevant Council of Ministers' meetings in Brussels. The Secretary of State for Wales will attend relevant meetings on the same basis. Policy is planned in the UK but settled in Brussels in negotiation with our European partners. Without involvement in Brussels, Scotland and Wales would be absent from what can be the most important part of the process. We will safeguard that.
We intend that Scottish executive Ministers and the Secretary of State for Wales will have a role to play in the UK team at relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers, working within the UK lead Minister's dispositions of the team to secure the best outcome for the United Kingdom in negotiations. This could involve being able to speak for the UK in appropriate cases. In addition, where appropriate on devolved matters, executive members of the Welsh assembly may make their separate contribution within the UK delegation, as agreed by the lead UK Minister. There is no constitutional problem here, as some have claimed. Whoever speaks does so to an agreed UK line. The UK lead Minister is accountable to this Parliament for that line. I must remind some Members opposite that when we talk about the UK Parliament post-devolution we are

189
talking exactly about that: a Parliament which is still the Parliament of the United Kingdom, not the parliament of England.
It is self-evident that the Scottish executive is accountable to the Scottish parliament for whatever it has agreed to. The assembly will want separate reassurance on its implication for Wales.
The Scottish executive will also have a representative office in Brussels, unless for some reason it unexpectedly decides otherwise. The Welsh assembly will be free to decide on its own arrangements. This is already the norm for regions within the European Union. It is a recognition that there is much more business transacted in Brussels than the formal core which is dealt with in the Council of Ministers and, prior to that, through COREPER. Separate offices for Scotland and Wales would not cut across the work of UKREP, to which Scotland and Wales will contribute staff just as they do now. What is proposed is not, as some parts of the press have luridly described it, a Scottish embassy in Brussels. As with many other regional governments, detached offices with a team of civil servants can act as a convenient link between the Scottish executive, the Welsh assembly and the many relevant interests in Brussels which will be part of that regional network of influence and policy. That is not, in essence, very different from the team of civil servants which the Scottish executive is likely to have based in London for day-to-day liaison.
I would like to turn in more detail to the Welsh Office proposals. In Wales, a £7,000 million budget for public services is decided by the Secretary of State without responsibility to or debate in an elected Welsh forum. The exercise of these decisions in accordance with the priorities of London and not of Wales has led to a widespread dissatisfaction with the political process.
The immense power and influence of unelected quango boards has caused a groundswell of resentment at a system which over the years has taken powers away from democratically elected tiers of government, both local and central. There is widespread agreement that too much control has been vested in an administrative state with tenuous links to the needs and preferences of the people of Wales.
There are those in Wales who are impatient that we have not been seen to move further to tackle the shortcomings of quango government. The White Paper highlights the action we propose to take before the assembly is set up: notably, by merging the three overlapping economic development agencies; reducing the number of training and enterprise councils and NHS trusts; and absorbing Tai Cymru into the Welsh Office. And when the assembly is established, two special health authorities will be abolished and their functions transferred. These proposals have had a warm and widespread welcome.
Less noticed has been the wide-ranging power that we are proposing to give the assembly over the remaining quangos. Our starting principle is that the structure of the public agencies which deliver services in Wales should, with few exceptions, be determined by the
190
elected representatives of the people of Wales. The assembly is therefore to have the power, first, to absorb functions from quangos; secondly, to delegate functions from quangos to elected local authorities; and, thirdly, to restructure, merge or abolish quangos.
That power will apply to six of the remaining executive quangos and to 18 of the 19 advisory quangos. The assembly will also have the power, if it chooses, to transfer functions to itself from the health authorities; for instance, commissioning key health services on an all-Wales basis. For all the remaining bodies, the assembly will bring to bear an open and democratically accountable control over appointments, strategic direction and funding. The Government do not want to pre-empt the assembly's decisions on how it should use these powers. That is the nature of devolved government.
This radical approach will restore a much needed public confidence to the exercise of many valuable and indispensable functions. It spearheads the way for a new look at the accountability of public bodies across the UK.
In the period since the White Papers were published last week, the public debate and scrutiny of our proposals have begun. We are heartened and encouraged by the reaction they have received. I believe they respond to the spirit of the times—they meet the aspirations of the people of Scotland and Wales and enjoy the support of the broad swathe of Scottish and Welsh opinion.
I believe that our proposals for Scotland and Wales are realistic, practical and firmly in line with a great deal of thinking throughout Europe and elsewhere about the relationships between the seat of national government and the regions. The aim of our proposals for devolution is to give the people in the constituent parts of the UK and the regions of England the opportunity to exercise more power over their affairs. That is why we are proposing that it should have more substantial powers over more areas of policy than was envisaged in 1978. Devolution will not be a panacea for either Scotland or Wales. The parliament and the assembly will certainly not solve every problem overnight. But we believe that devolution will bring significant benefits for both countries, and in so doing will strengthen the United Kingdom as we move into the 21st century.
These proposals are designed to establish a new structure of government for Scotland and Wales—firmly within the United Kingdom but giving people more say over their own affairs. I believe that our proposals lay the basis for a stable and enduring settlement for Scotland and Wales and also for the United Kingdom. They are designed to strengthen every part of the Union—I believe that they will.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I ask him how it is that he can mention Scotland and Wales and say nothing about England, which represents more than 85 per cent. of the United Kingdom. He has said nothing about how these measures will affect us. This has been a long, involved

191
Scottish and Welsh special pleading session. If the Government are not careful, the English will get cross and that will be disastrous for the United Kingdom.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am tempted to observe that the noble Earl did not actually hear what I said. I mentioned the United Kingdom quite a lot. Secondly, I mentioned England on several occasions when Ipointed out that the process of devolution does not stop at Scotland and Wales. It goes on to deal with the regions of England. That is essential to our argument.
Moved, That this House take note of the Government's proposals for devolution in Scotland and in Wales, as set out in the White Papers Scotland's Parliament (Cm 3658) and A Voice for Wales—the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly (Cm 3718).—(Lord Sewel.)
3.54p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this is a very important debate and a serious one as it relates to the future of our country. I am very sorry that we could not have it over two days—one for Wales and one for Scotland. I intend to be brief in order to set a good example to those who follow. But nobody should take my brevity as a sign that I have in any way weakened my resolve that these White Papers represent dismal reading for those of us who believe in the Union.
I start today where I finished my remarks after the Statement. What do these White Papers do for the Union? That is my litmus test. The Welsh White Paper describes the Welsh assembly as firmly embedded in the United Kingdom. In the Scottish White Paper, the Secretary of State, Donald Dewar, says in the foreword:
"Scotland will remain firmly part of the United Kingdom".
In his Statement he described the proposals as giving strength to the enduring partnership of the United Kingdom.
I said to your Lordships then, "I hae ma doots". Those doubts are reinforced in Scotland and Wales by the news that the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are to campaign vigorously for "Yes" votes. Therefore, the separatist lion is to lie down with the Unionist lamb. So Alex Salmond, the leader of the SNP, will be asking me to vote "Yes, yes" in order to destroy the Union. The Secretary of State, Donald Dewar, and his friends, want me to vote "Yes, yes" to strengthen the Union. One of them is wrong. They both cannot be right.
Interestingly, a recent poll in Scotland shows that only 17 per cent. believe that a Scottish parliament will lead to stronger ties with the rest of the United Kingdom. Almost double that number—33 per cent.—believe that it will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I wish that I could believe Donald Dewar; I wish that I was part of the 17 per cent.; but try as I might, I remain part of the 33 per cent. I see the White Papers not as cement in the bricks of our 300 year-old Union but as a demolition team ready to tear it apart.
Even as we speak, the other place is throwing out your Lordships' proposed change to the second question in the Scottish referendum. Rather than ask, "I agree that a Scottish parliament should have income tax-varying powers", later today that question will be simplified to
192
say simply, "I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers". Today and on previous occasions I have found the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, on that issue thin in the extreme.
Now that I have studied the White Paper I know why the Government do not want to specify income tax and also why they are so reticent about explaining their reasons. In paragraph 7.13 we see the beginnings of the explanation. We have always discussed plus or minus 3p. in the pound, although, to be honest, most of us believed that it would inevitably be plus 3p. in the pound. But that is not the whole story because it is actually plus or minus £450 million. That £450 million is to be preserved. It is to be index-linked in order to preserve it.
The noble Lord managed to get round that, at least to his own satisfaction—certainly not to mine. I ask him again what will happen if the 3p. in the pound does not raise £450 million. What tax is to be imposed or raised to make up any difference? It cannot be within the 3p. in the pound, which I believe the noble Lord mentioned in his speech, because that will not raise £450 million. Where is the extra to come from? How will the shortfall be met? What tax will be raised? I expect an answer today; not in writing, but today.
If we move on to paragraph 7.26, we see the completion of the reason for not specifying income tax. Dealing with the parliament's powers over local government finance, it says:
"The Scottish Parliament will be responsible for determining the form of local taxation, both domestic and non-domestic".
It adds:
"It will be for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether to retain the power to set the non-domestic rate poundage … or to devolve that responsibility to local councils".
It says also:
"It will therefore be able to alter the form of the council tax, or replace it if it so decides".
It is no wonder that the Government want the parliament to have tax-varying powers. Non-domestic rates will be decided either by the parliament or by the local authority. There is a tax-varying power. Business better be warned.
Council tax payers had better be warned as well for not only could council tax be raised or varied—I use the more elegant expression favoured by the Government—but it could be replaced or added to, perhaps by a local income tax so beloved of their partners, the Liberal Democrats. It may take the form of a local sales tax. Yes, they are tax-varying powers indeed.
I have reached the conclusion that the Government are absolutely right to throw out your Lordships' amendment to the Bill. It would be totally wrong and dishonest to ask us to agree or disagree about income tax-varying powers because that clearly is not the plan. It is much wider. We see in the White Paper why the Government were determined in Committee and on Report to keep income tax out of the question. If we vote for tax-varying powers, we will be voting for a much wider variation than just plus or minus 3p. on income tax. Business and individuals in Scotland will have no protection against other tax increases from the

193
Scottish parliament, or via it from local authorities. Such frankness by the Government, although probably unintended, is at least to be welcomed. Those of us who will vote on the issue now know exactly from the White Paper why we are being asked to keep the question general.
I turn briefly to Europe, and especially to agriculture and the fisheries. I am afraid that today the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has, again, failed to persuade me as to how the system will work. In paragraph 5.4, the White Paper clearly says that the agreed "UK line" will have to be adhered to by the Scottish executive. I posed some questions on the matter and tried to engage the Minister in debate, but he singularly did not want to engage in it. I am not surprised. I was not impressed by his previous answers on fisheries, and I am not impressed today.
However, I shall try again. This time I should like to talk about the beef ban. There is a view that, to lift the ban, we should start with Northern Ireland, given the protections which are in place in the Province. The Scottish NFU is, I understand, fiercely opposed to such a move. Let us assume that, notwithstanding this opposition, the UK Government decide to make progress in the negotiations and have the ban lifted in Northern Ireland as the first step. How comfortable would the noble Lord be if he were responsible for agriculture on the Scottish executive? Presumably he would have resisted the policy in the confidential discussions, but he would need to adhere to it; and, indeed, defend it in the Scottish parliament, in the Scottish press, and to the Scottish NFU.
A few moments' thought is all that is needed to see the total impossibility of this scenario. The proposals in the White Paper on these relationships are simply not of the real world. Given the overwhelming European aspect on agriculture and the fisheries policy, I offer the noble Lord some free advice. Before we come to deal with the Bill, the noble Lord should decide to leave agriculture and fisheries with the Secretary of State for Scotland; that is to say, firmly within the UK Government and Parliament and firmly within collective Cabinet responsibility. Otherwise, the interests of Scottish farmers and Scottish fishermen will be sidelined in the forums and in the policy-making decisions which matter most to them.
There is much more that concerns me in the White Papers. However, I rest my case on the two policy issues I have mentioned; namely, finance and Europe. At the heart of my worries are the points I made right at the start concerning the litmus test: does this enhance and maintain our Union? The White Papers show me red; indeed, deep, deep red for danger. As I said when the Statement was repeated in this House, this is a bleak day for our 300 year-old Union. Nothing I have seen since that day has convinced me otherwise.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for his example of brevity. I shall try to follow that part of his
194
example, if no other part. I shall deal only with the Scottish White Paper, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford will deal later with the Welsh White Paper.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, yet again I have to say that I agree with the comment made by one of my honourable friends in another place that the Scottish Tory Party must have the flattest learning curve in history. They do not seem to have learnt a thing from their total wipe-out at the general election. Indeed, we are still having the same old views trotted forward as though they had a massive endorsement from the people three months ago. Clearly they have no such endorsement.
I believe that the Scottish White Paper and the proposals before us represent in four particular areas a substantial improvement on the proposals brought forward by the previous government and put to the Scottish people in 1978–79. In the first place—and I well remember taking part in the referendum campaign at that time—there were complaints that the creation of a Scottish parliament, or Scottish assembly as it was then called because it did not have the same powers, would represent a third tier of government. Since then local government has been reduced to one tier and, therefore, there will not be three tiers of government; indeed, there will be only two. So that argument has been removed.
I turn now to the second argument that has been removed. With the creation of a proportional representation system as outlined in the White Paper, the legitimate fear in many parts of Scotland in the outlying areas, including my own, was that the Scottish parliament would be dominated by an artificial Labour majority from the central belt. That argument was used in the last referendum but is now gone. It is a welcome improvement.
The third improvement is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, takes such objection; namely the taxation powers. I should like to be quite frank on the matter. The fact that the powers of raising or lowering income tax are specifically mentioned is necessary because income tax is a UK responsibility. However, in that respect, I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that there are other areas involved. Indeed, when is a tax not a tax? The answer is when it is a charge. Of course the Scottish parliament will have power to levy other charges or taxes as it so wishes.
Let us suppose, for example, that the people of Scotland decided—or the politicians in Scotland decided—that there should be a dog registration scheme. It is quite within their competence to do so and they will be quite entitled to levy a charge for it. The noble Lord might call it a tax, but why should they not do so? Other dafter proposals have been raised before, such as a hotel bed tax. But again, although I would not agree with it, it is certainly within the competence of a Scottish parliament. I believe that the responsibility of a Scottish parliament to be able to deal with its own finances is a major improvement in this particular scheme.
Fourth—and perhaps even more important, although not so easy to understand—is the fact that the powers of the Westminster Parliament will be specifically reserved in the legislation that will come before the

195
House, rather than the other way around. To put it bluntly, the Scottish parliament can do whatever it likes as long as it does not trespass on those issues specifically set out in the legislation which are reserved for this Parliament. I also believe that to be a great advance.
I believe that the proposals in the White Paper are to he warmly welcomed. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, or any of his colleagues have read the paper that I have with me entitled, To Make the Parliament of Scotland, a Model for Democracy, which was published a few years ago. The authors were Bernard Crick and David Millar. It is a most valuable paper and runs to well over 50 pages. Perhaps I may read just two short extracts to your Lordships. On page 2 the authors say:
"A new and a national Parliament has an historic opportunity to innovate, not merely to create and adopt procedures more effective and more responsive to public opinion than those at Westminster, but to show Westminster and other centres of power that new ways are needed, can work and are better".
On page 3 the authors also say:
"The tradition-bound procedures of the Westminster Parliament and its excessively confrontational nature are sufficient enough reason for Scotland's Parliament to make a clean break with Westminster's procedures. Scotland's Parliament need not suffer from excessive executive control and party domination in what is likely to remain, quite apart from the consequences of a new electoral system, a multi-party system".
All I can say to noble Lords on the Conservative Benches is that a great deal of thought and work have gone into the proposals behind the White Paper since the Scottish Constitutional Convention published its original proposals some years ago. The fact that the Conservative Party has not been part of that process is entirely its fault. Indeed, the fact that its members are raising such questions proves that they have not thought the matter through. For example, the paper to which I referred dealt specifically with the increased influence that the German Länder have had on German federal policy in Europe. Therefore, why should we think all the time that Westminster will suppress Scottish views on Europe when the lesson from the past, with the European acceptance of the role of such governments in Germany, is that it is those Länder governments who have influenced federal policy. I do not think that the issue should always be seen as one way round.
Another issue has been raised by noble Lords on the Benches beside me; namely, that the SNP will support the proposals. The SNP took no part in the constitutional convention and has had no hand in the drafting of these proposals. It has been entirely negative about them. It has a completely different objective; namely, a separate independent Scotland. There is no public support in Scotland for that proposition. Indeed I venture to suggest that a great many of the 20 per cent. or so who voted SNP at the previous election will be perfectly happy with the proposals that are before your Lordships' House at the present time. It is only a tiny minority even of those who support the SNP who want a separate army, navy and air force and all the other things that go with a separate state.
196
I firmly believe, contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, but with equal vehemence, that these proposals represent a security for the future of the United Kingdom with decentralised government rather than the continuation of a long held grievance in Scotland that our affairs are not being properly considered. If the SNP supports these proposals for the wrong reason, that is something we shall have to bear with our customary fortitude. It is not something which need trouble us unduly.
I said that I would not speak for long. I wish to raise one other issue regarding the new procedures of the parliament which I mentioned in relation to the Statement the other day. The White Paper refers to a search for a building. I again warn the Government that people in Scotland, although enthusiastic about these proposals, will count the pennies. They will not want grandiose schemes for a new parliament building involving vast expense if that can be avoided. I hope that the Minister will respond to this point at the conclusion of the debate because I have mentioned it before. Is the search for a building to include the Royal High School in Edinburgh which has already been paid for by the taxpayer and converted to a parliamentary building? I know its limitations as I have been inside it many times. Is it technically and financially possible to consider the option of using the Old St. Andrew's House as parliamentary offices and providing a tunnel between the two, as is common in many parliaments in the world, notably in the United States? Those who have been there will have seen the quick transit system in place there. I believe that would be a cheaper option and one that should be pursued.
I conclude with a quotation from one of my most distinguished deceased constituents, Sir Walter Scott. In his novel The Heart of Midlothian he put the following words into the mouth of one of his characters:
"When we had a king and a chancellor and parliament—men o'our ain, we could aye peeble them wi' stones when they werena guid bairns. But naebody's nails can reach the length o' Lunnon".
It is to put that right that we are approving this White Paper today.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I, too, shall be brief. That is not because I regard these as other than important proposals. They are important not only for Scotland generally; they are also of particular importance for the Scottish legal system which is my particular concern. I shall therefore confine myself to making three short points which are interconnected.
The first and basic point arises from the obvious fact that what the Government are embarked upon is a programme of major constitutional reform. They admit that; it is the whole essence of their policy. In particular what is envisaged is a new Scottish parliament and a new Scottish executive. Those bodies will be new and therefore will not be bound by, or affected automatically by, the many unwritten arrangements and conventions which operate in many areas of our affairs at present. Those arrangements and conventions are not related purely to minor matters. On the contrary many are related to matters

197
of great importance. Unless the conventions or something similar are reproduced in substance under any new arrangements in Scotland after devolution, certain crucial safeguards will be lost.
To put the matter shortly, any devolution legislation which follows a successful referendum outcome will require to spell out certain matters which are in effect taken for granted at present. I give two examples. The first of these—which is related to my second point—concerns the independence of the judiciary. I do not think that anyone in your Lordships' House would dispute that the independence of the judiciary is vital for the protection of the liberty and rights of citizens. It will remain of crucial importance after devolution. At present it depends on a combination of factors relating to such matters as the appointment of members of the judiciary, their salaries and the security of tenure of the judges. These matters work in a subtle way. It appears to me that no government of the United Kingdom can be indifferent to the maintenance of the proper standard of independence of the judiciary in Scotland after devolution because, as has been stressed, we shall remain very much a part of the United Kingdom. These arrangements are matters which depend, in large measure, on arrangements and conventions which are not written down. They should be addressed as regards any devolution legislation which is brought before Parliament.
The second and not unrelated matter concerns the independence of the office of Lord Advocate. As many of your Lordships will know, he is the head of the prosecution system in Scotland. Paragraph 4.8 of the White Paper relating to Scotland states that the independence of the Lord Advocate will be maintained. However, that is mentioned rather en passant. Again, I stress that this is not a matter which can be left to chance. In my view it is something for which specific provision should be made in any legislation which is brought forward. At present it rests on well established convention. The Government will recall that the convention became firmly established precisely because of an attempt by the first Labour Government to interfere with the prosecution discretion of the then Attorney-General. These temptations have arisen in the past and may arise again. Rather than leave the matter—if it should arise—to be sorted out in some sort of scramble, in my view the legislation should deal with that important matter at the outset.
I conclude by saying that the Government should recognise the nature of the exercise in which they are engaged. They are proposing major constitutional changes; they therefore require to consider carefully the full implications including those for established conventions which may seem unobtrusive but which are nonetheless important. The values and the standards which those conventions ensure at the moment should be carried over into any solution for devolution after the referendum.
4.18 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the opportunity to speak on this occasion. I quote from Hansard,
"My Lords, as I have never before interrupted the proceeding of the house by any of my scruples or objections, I hope now to be heard with that candour which your lordships are accustomed to show to those who do not speak from the confidence of greater knowledge than that of other men, but from the consciousness of less. Whose intention is to obtain, from the superior abilities and long experience of those who are engaged in the administration of affairs, such information as may free their minds from scruples … and are desirous like me to give their votes with honesty on every question before us".
Those are in fact the words of the second member of my family to sit in your Lordships' House, in 1744, and this was after a lengthy wrangle which, probably to everyone's astonishment, had issued in the House sitting in silence. It was the thorny issue of the payment of Hanoverian troops stationed in the country at that time.
Your Lordships will be well aware that it is now the 290th anniversary of Scottish participation at Westminster and it is a great privilege to be the eighth member of my family in direct succession to have had a place in this House.
I cannot help but declare an interest in the subject of the White Paper as a Scot brought up in Scotland, but also from a family whose history has encompassed all sides of this argument. The first Duke of Montrose was one of the commissioners who negotiated the treaty between the two countries. That gave the Scots the right to enter as free traders into a mercantilist economy and thereby have access to some of the plum markets of the world. In our current frame of mind, it may seem unfortunate that it entailed monetary union. This had been avoided for about 100 years since the union of the Crowns. But then, unlike the present day, the Scottish economy had suffered from various disasters and that must have made that part of the decision that much easier.
Not so long ago, I had a grandfather who in 1936 espoused the cause of devolved legislature and more democratic supervision of Scottish bureaucracy. Noble Lords can imagine what popularity that gained him at that point in time. However, the proposals in the White Paper are certainly more radical than most we have seen recently. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, put more eloquently my next point: that with the numbers of areas left unexplained in the Bill, it appears to be a giant leap across a chasm. At this distance it may seem that the grass is very much greener on the other side. But I suppose it is possible to consider that, this country having granted new constitutions to lands around the globe, it thinks of itself as in fine athletic training for jumping chasms. But let us be sure that consideration is given to all of its implications.
In that respect I do not have to go beyond the experience of my own family in what was formerly Rhodesia to consider another aspect of this process. I gather from reports of the recent SNP conference in Perth that in saying this I shall not be putting ideas into some people's minds. But once one has a subordinate legislature which does not see things in the way of its central government, it is very easy for frustrations to

199
build up to the point where it feels justified in announcing a unilateral declaration of independence. Not having a separate military force, that might be a little harder to envisage for the Scots, but it can be easy for members to convince themselves that it is the patriotic thing to do.
The area that gives me most cause for concern, and one with which the Minister is directly involved, is agriculture. The schemes for financial assistance to Scottish agriculture apparently amount to about £400 million. Under the White Paper, from all that I can find out, only the agri-environment measures would be of consequence within the reckoning of the block grant and come under the direct authority of the Scottish parliament. If that is the only Scottish body with a responsibility in these matters, it means that about £395 million of the support coming into Scotland will be the result of a decision-making process which will be subject to very little influence from Scottish views. At the present time, in the person of my noble friend there is a deputy UK Minister, and even, in the Secretary of State, a Cabinet Minister, with responsibility for putting the Scottish view in Whitehall. As pointed out by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the BSE crisis and the reform of the common agricultural policy will not be the last area where Scottish views may differ from those of the Ministry of Agriculture. Will there not be a need for some member of the UK Government, like the Secretary of State, to have responsibility for making representations either, with UK agreement, in Brussels or within the UK Cabinet? Anything less would seem like a severe lessening of Scotland's influence in this field.
That in itself touches on an area where we are left with a great deal of conjecture. What will be the relationship between the new First Minister and the Secretary of State—something which from the start will demand an immense amount of understanding and good will? One might almost say it is a situation demanding more "goodheart" and a little less "braveheart".
Like the ancestor to whom I referred at the beginning of my remarks, I look forward to obtaining information from my attendance in your Lordships' House. At this point I cannot say what effect it will have on my scruples, but I hope that there are fields of my experience in which I can usefully contribute.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, it is a great honour on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, on his thought-provoking and outstanding maiden speech. His credentials for speaking in the debate are impeccable. He touched upon some of them. I should like to recall a few more. There is, after all, a connection with my own family. His early predecessor, the Earl of Montrose, and the first Lord Sempill went out with the King and died at Flodden. More notable perhaps was the first Marquess of Montrose who fought on behalf of the Royalists what is considered by Scottish historians to be one of the greatest campaigns of all times. Unfortunately, he fell foul of the system and in 1650 was sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered (I am afraid to say to the
200
noble Duke) by the then Scottish Parliament. I am pleased to say, however, that his great grandson, the fourth Marquess, to whom the noble Duke referred, as Lord President of the Council of Scotland was the prime instigator in creating the Union.
The family have had a substantial involvement in British politics. The third and fourth Dukes were both MPs for English constituencies. On the Scottish side, the fifth and sixth Dukes were both high commissioners of the Church. The noble Duke mentioned his father who played a substantial role in Rhodesia. I am only too pleased to say that the noble Duke's role in Scottish agricultural affairs has been greatly appreciated. Therefore I am sure that the whole House will hope that we shall hear from him often, especially in the sphere of agriculture where he has served Scotland with distinction.
I am a great believer in the maxim "keep it simple". Therefore I have to congratulate the Government on their White Paper. It is well laid out and easy to read. Unfortunately, its simplicity opens it up to close scrutiny and a multitude of questions. When I look back to the hours of debate spent in this House on the six-clause referendum Bill, I strongly recommend that noble Lords planning to take part in the devolution Bill use the Summer Recess to build up their strength. I suspect that running marathons without preparation would be less exhausting.
The risks of devolution have been well aired and will continue to make most of the headlines. I wish to express my concern regarding paragraph 4.15 of the White Paper and the reality of differing views between the Scottish executive and the UK Government on the legislative powers of the Scottish parliament. That there will be procedures for identifying and resolving any such difficulties is admirable; but to assume that they will be resolved "quickly and amicably" is, to quote the leader in the Sunday Times, "to tempt fate". A future clash between a Tory-controlled United Kingdom and an anti-Tory Edinburgh parliament is not inconceivable especially when Scotland will have fewer MPs after devolution.
The article observes that much will depend on the quality of those elected to administer a £14 billion budget and suggests that the parliament's fiscal management could easily become unstuck, especially in regard to its ability or lack of ability to control local authority spending. It is therefore with some relief that I note the intention in Chapter 6 of the White Paper to,
"establish an independent committee to study how to build the most effective relations between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive and a strong and effective local government".
I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me as to when that committee is to be established and, more importantly, who will sit on it. The chapter goes on to say that the parliament will,
"have the power to set the framework within which local government operates and to legislate to make changes to the powers, boundaries and functions of local authorities".
That sounds most promising, especially in regard to certain local authorities whose style of management seems certain to clash with an executive desirous of establishing a strong and effective leadership. It is to

201
this area, namely the role of the parliament in its relationship with local government, that I strongly recommend that those who draw up the Bill should pay particular attention.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the Minister to comment on an interesting observation made by William Rees-Mogg in the same edition of the Sunday Times under the title,
"See Democracy die in a hail of ballots".
He first of all points out that while both White Papers explain the proposed electoral system in Annex C, the lack of greater detail provided in the Welsh paper makes the Scottish electoral system almost impossible to understand. He goes on to point out that,
"the power of nominating list members greatly strengthens party managers".
In Wales there will be 40 constituency members and 20 list members. In Scotland, there will be 73 constituency members and 56 list members. In Wales, however, the list members account for only 33 per cent. of the assembly. But in Scotland they will account for 43 per cent. of the parliament. What is the logic behind that? If nothing else, it shows a lack of consistency on the important issue of constitutional reform.
Finally, while I have very strong reservations on the outcome of devolution, I, for one, will take the opportunity to seek election for the Scottish parliament. There will be substantial challenges. The opportunity to help develop a better society for the people of Scotland and build a stronger Union is there to be had.
It is time to be positive and to look forward. Perhaps I may leave your Lordships with this thought: nothing grows in ice. If we let tradition freeze our minds, new ideas cannot be cultivated.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in the short time available to me I must be very selective in my comments. Twenty-one years ago there was a two-day debate in this House on devolution for Scotland and Wales. I remember it well, since I wound up the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I have trodden this ground before and am familiar with some of the pitfalls and minefields that beset the task of trying to establish an elected body for Scotland within the United Kingdom. Three years later the resulting scheme collapsed because there was not enough support for it in Scotland. If anyone cares to look up that debate, it will be seen that inquiring minds on all sides of the House were seeking positively a way in which devolution could safely and enduringly be carried out.
The Kilbrandon Royal Commission had published its report just over two years earlier, after four and a half years of consultation and deliberation. The gist of its recommendations for Scotland was that an assembly might be practicable, but that the number of Scottish MPs would have to be considerably reduced following the precedent in Northern Ireland in the early 1920s.
Many parliamentarians of all parties, and others outside Parliament, were not at all sure that the loss of those MPs was worth it, in return for an additional layer
202
of expensive politicians. That consideration is relevant also today, since the White Paper announces a review of the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster.
After that debate, the Labour Government grappled vigorously and manfully with the very difficult process of establishing a Scottish assembly—with White Papers, a Bill withdrawn and various other setbacks. It proved a very complex and herculean task. At this stage last time, in 1976 and 1977, opinion polls in Scotland regularly showed 60 per cent. or more in favour of the idea. However, the post-legislation referendum produced only 33 per cent. in favour of the particular scheme on offer. The polls have been showing much the same degree of support now—around 60 per cent.—for devolution, or decentralisation, which is always a popular concept.
The White Paper on Scotland confirms previous reports that virtually all the present functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland are to be transferred to the executive of the proposed Scottish parliament. The existing Scottish Office departments dealing with home affairs, health, education, housing, roads, agriculture and fisheries and the other subjects already devolved administratively to Scotland would presumably start serving new masters. The staff of civil servants would still be employed by the United Kingdom Government. My first question is therefore: will the civil servants concerned by given a choice as to whether to remain in those departments or to transfer to other parts of the United Kingdom service after reasonable intervals?
After the massive transfer of the present responsibilities of the Scottish Office, what is to happen to the Secretary of State? He is to be left with very few of his previous functions. Paragraph 4.12 of the White Paper states that once the new parliament is in being, he will be concerned with
"promoting communication between the Scottish Parliament and Executive and between the UK Parliament and Government on matters of mutual interest".
That is hardly a full-time job! He is also to represent Scottish interests in reserved areas. Reserved areas include, as expected, defence, foreign policy, Treasury control of the fiscal, economic and monetary system and transport safety. Other reserved areas are where government departments at present administer the whole of Great Britain, in particular employment and social security matters, including the Benefits Agency. These would be retained by their relevant departments in London. The subjects involved—jobs and social security eligibility for payments—are matters of close personal concern for many individuals and families.
Some explanation is needed in relation to the role of the Secretary of State when he has become simply a "communications" Minister, as described in the White Paper, but is still in the Cabinet. Is it realistic to suppose that he can be regarded as communicating for the Scottish First Minister and his Scottish Ministers when he has no responsibilities himself for the subjects in question?
Perhaps I may illustrate the point from my own experience. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland in the early 1970s, it was part of my job to co-ordinate

203
policies and new initiatives with the Ministers responsible for the same subjects in England and Wales. I started two or three new schemes in Scotland on education. Before adopting them, I discussed them fully, and all the implications for the United Kingdom, with the Minister responsible for education in England and Wales, then my noble friend Lady Thatcher. Possible difficulties were foreseen and usually ironed out. I find it difficult to visualise a Secretary of State for Education in England placing much value on discussions with the messenger, the liaison officer, rather than the Minister responsible for education in Scotland. My noble friend Lady Thatcher would certainly have expected to deal directly with the First Minister, or at least the Minister in the Scottish executive responsible for education. I did not serve in a Cabinet with the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, since we were on opposite sides in the other place. However, I have no doubt that he, too, when he was Secretary of State for Education, would have expected to deal direct with the Education Minister for Scotland.
To give another example, in 1971 I carried out a reorganisation of the National Health Service in Scotland, with a substantial Bill going through Parliament. That was a year before the Bill was introduced for the reorganisation in England and Wales. Naturally, I had discussions, again outside Cabinet, with the then Secretary of State for Health for England and Wales, the late Lord Joseph (who was then Sir Keith Joseph), before my Bill was finally drafted. The new "messenger" Secretary of State for Scotland would not be able to carry out that role effectively because he would have no executive authority for education or health.
I turn to law and justice and page 5 of the White Paper. Would the Scottish Parliament have the power to bring back the death penalty in Scotland? I see nothing in the White Paper to clarify that point.
With regard to judicial appointments, page 5 of the White Paper indicates that, except for the two most senior judges, the Scottish executive would make these appointments and could vary the terms of the appointments. At present, all Court of Session judges are appointed by the Queen. Any changes raise questions on the independence of the judiciary. I add that point to the excellent points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.
Let me ask another question. Is the right of appeal from the Court of Session in Edinburgh to the House of Lords to be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, or would the Scottish parliament have a new part in that?
There is a question which I have put in the past and now put again: will the signing of warrants to authorise telephone tapping be reserved? That cannot now be delegated by the Secretary of State for Scotland to other Scottish Office Ministers.
With regard to business, finance and industry, I trust that the Government have observed the apprehension of the Scottish commercial world over paragraph 7.26, which proposes that the Scottish parliament could pass
204
responsibility for non-domestic rates to local councils. It was hoped that that was past history after the painful experiences of the past.
There is an important statement on tax on page 24. Savings and dividend income will not be subject to the varying powers. The electorate in Scotland will wish to know what that entails when considering how to vote on Proposition 2 in September. What will be classified as savings? For example, do they include all personal bank accounts? Will interest from them be exempted? What else will be exempted? The term "savings" can mean different things to many in the population. In exempting dividend income, the Government avoid exasperating complications. That is understandable. Nonetheless, do the Government realise that that could lead to strange anomalies. Recipients of dividend income are usually reasonably well off. They will not be charged the additional 3p if tax is varied upwards. By contrast, someone whose income comes only from his pay packet will not enjoy that exemption. Is that what the Government intend?
Paragraph 7.19 estimates the cost for employers in Scotland in setting up a special system for collecting PAYE as no less than £50 million.
Let me put my last question, which is rather lighthearted. Is the report correct that the Scottish White Paper is nearly twice the price of the Welsh White Paper because it contains colour portrait photographs of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland'?
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I believe that the plans for a Scottish parliament outlined in the White Paper will give Scotland a strong and effective parliament and provide for a stable constitutional settlement for the future. The proposals recognise Scotland's distinct identity, as well as the strong links that bind Scotland into the United Kingdom. Indeed, they will give added strength to the partnership of the United Kingdom, while modernising our constitution.
It is the modernisation which provides a sense of excitement to that historic document. When I said in my speech in the debate on the humble Address that I shared the excitement of the people of Scotland at the coming of a Scottish parliament, noble Lords opposite seemed to find that strange. Can anyone doubt, after the launch of the White Paper, that there is indeed a sense of excitement in the air about this long anticipated move for change, for which people in Scotland have waited so long.
It is a point of particular satisfaction—I declare an interest as co-chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention—that the Government's proposals have built upon the plans of the convention (and in some respects, indeed, have developed them further) to provide a parliament that is based on new, forward-looking concepts of democratic parliamentary practices that are right for the new millennium. That is true in many respects. But in view of the length of the list of speakers, I intend to deal with only one or two of them today—the ones which are of particular interest to me.

205
First, with regard to Europe, the White Paper goes further than the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which proposed that Scotland's parliament should be represented in UK ministerial delegations and, when appropriate, should take the lead in discussions on matters of particular concern to Scotland. The convention also proposed that the parliament should choose representatives to the Committee of the Regions and to the Economic and Social Committee and that it should establish a representative office in Brussels. All those recommendations are included in the White Paper. In addition, it is proposed that the parliament should scrutinise EU legislative proposals, which will allow in-depth assessment of EU proposals and ensure that Scotland's interests are properly reflected.
The White Paper also gives the Scottish executive the responsibility to implement and enforce EU obligations which concern devolved matters. That will ensure that EU legislation can be accommodated in Scottish law and to Scottish circumstances.
All those proposals would build on the arrangements currently in operation involving the Scottish Office in UK negotiations. The formal negotiations between member states is one aspect of activity in the EU. Another is the fact, as the White Paper states, that influence within the EU begins well before the process of formal negotiation begins and operates through many more channels than the formal Community and intergovernmental processes. For example, UKREP will continue to perform, one could say, its ambassadorial role in Brussels to the European institutions for the whole of the UK. The Scottish executive representative office will complement that work, in assisting Scotland's direct relationships in Brussels. As the White Paper states, it is the norm for regional governments within the European Union to have representative offices in Brussels.
The aim of all the proposals concerning Europe is, in the words of the White Paper:
"to allow Scotland within the UK to develop its role in the European Union".
That is an aim which I heartily endorse.
Of particular interest and concern to me, as indeed it was to the convention, is that women should be fully involved in every way and at every level in the political life of Scotland. The Labour Party agreed with the convention's aim that there should be equal representation of women in Scottish politics, where, both locally and nationally, as in so many other countries, women have been under-represented. The Labour Party is committed to the principle of equal numbers of women and men in the Scottish parliament and has signed an electoral agreement with the Liberal Democrats to try to achieve that. That pledge will be honoured so far as those two parties are concerned and I hope that other parties will follow suit.
That would lead to a gender balance unprecedented in British government and most importantly will help to lead the way to a new political culture. And this crucially important aspect of the Parliament—the
206
potential for a new political culture—is, if I may say so, in danger of being overlooked, if one can judge from the tenor of the debate on the referendums Bill.
The Scottish parliament, not least because of the voting system by which it will be elected, will have to operate on more consensual and less adversarial lines and its methods of work will have to be different from traditional Westminster practices. It will have to be more family friendly in its operation and it will have to have an extensive committee structure. There will be more time for an agenda of issues which affect the lives of people and their families directly and in which women, as well as men, will have an immediate stake and interest.
The Scottish parliament will have an opportunity to make Scotland a better place for women, through its responsibilities for health, housing, education, transport, social work, crime prevention and a whole raft of other subjects of particular concern to women. All of that in the new parliament favours many more women being able to participate fully in its work and being attracted to enter it.
The White Paper makes it clear that we hope that 50:50 representation will be achieved in the parliament. Experience in other countries shows that a critical mass of women politicians is a potent force for change. I have to say, with the greatest of respect, that this is not the easiest place in the world to rouse enthusiasm for equal numbers of women to be the norm at all levels of our political life.
But the Scottish parliament, with its opportunity to respond to the needs of a society of our time, has the potential to bring government closer to the people, to restore the damaged image of politics and politicians and to open a new chapter of Scottish politics reflecting the geographical diversity of Scotland, the spread of its political values (including the Conservative Party) and the inclusion of all the people of Scotland—2.5 million of whom are women. That is exciting, and that is the future.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the most vivid image produced by a Labour Member of Parliament in last week's debate in another place was of St. Run, his white gown flowing, brandishing his manifesto above his head, striding across the Severn Bridge backed by a host of English Members of Parliament taking the English to Wales to tell the Welsh what is good for us. Worse, he is hoping that the Scots, given their vote seven days earlier, will be an effective part of this attempt to twist the arms of the reluctant Welsh.
Wales being got at in this way is a Wales on a fast-rising tide of prosperity and confidence. To quote the Secretary of State, "some of the communities served by the Welsh Development Agency are now among the most prosperous in the United Kingdom". That is not a statement that anyone could have made with decency 18 years ago. The plan, against that background, is that we should have 60 assembly persons-60, for a population of under 3 million—spending £100 million or so over the next four years which could have been spent on health and education.

207
We have just heard an interesting speech about the contribution made by women. My wife, who makes a fairly robust contribution to public affairs in Wales, is sympathetic to this Government. On hearing that there were to be 60 assembly members, she said very pungently indeed, "What, 60 for 2.75 million people? What nonsense!" Incidentally, the assembly, sitting on the top of local government, is hardly going to strengthen the local involvement of people where they want it most—in local authorities—despite the protestations of the Government's White Paper.
Mr. Alan Williams in another place, in the context of the alleged need for quango reform, inquired pointedly why the Secretary of State did not go ahead and do it himself. There would then be no need for a permanent 60-member assembly. In a remarkable speech he inquired why, if all these growing important responsibilities being transferred in Wales could not be dealt with without an assembly, were English Ministers failing in their duties to the people of England. The way in which people have been governed and administered has been pretty well the same throughout the United Kingdom. It is an interesting point as to why it is so essential in Wales when apparently nothing of this kind is being proposed in England and we are doing the whole business bit by bit in a piecemeal fashion.
In another remarkable speech Mr. Denzil Davies said that he feared for Wales. I fear for Britain. As he pointed out, the referendum was lost in 1979 because the Welsh people feared for Wales and for Britain and did not think that what was on offer was worth the risk. It is still the position that what is being planned is a move away from British institutions. The nationalists believe that they can escape the English and become a European nation. But, as Mr. Davies pointed out, the unbundling of the British state which is planned will not just mean that Wales will be loosened from England; but that England will be loosened from Wales, and to an even greater extent the same will be true of Scotland. This is a Bill that affects the whole of the United Kingdom and will affect it profoundly.
What will the English do when they recognise that fact and recognise the scale of the subsidies passing from England to Scotland and Wales? Mr. Davies, a former Treasury Minister, surprised me by putting the figure in Wales at between £5 billion and £6 billion each year. What will the people do at a time when Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament, powerless to influence domestic policy in their own countries, come to have what may well prove to be a decisive influence on deciding what it should be in England? I have sat through many painful debates in Cabinet about the validity of what is now known as the Barnett formula. Those debates were carried out in the privacy of a British Cabinet. Apparently the debate in future is to be carried out in public between the Government at Westminster, the Treasury in Whitehall and frustrated assemblies in Scotland and Wales. I am certain that it will be a much rougher affair and the Secretaries of State will not be happy men or women. I doubt also that the outcome will be as favourable for the people of Scotland and Wales as those private exchanges were in the past.
208
Despite the protestations of the White Paper, the Goschen-Barnett formulas will not survive for long. Also, as in Scotland so in Wales, it will be impossible to justify the continuing existence of 38 MPs in addition to 60 assembly members. MPs will be castrated of their powers and influence over just those matters that most interest their constituents. However, they will not be so badly maimed or weakened as the Secretaries of State.
Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, chided the Conservative Party for not having created the Welsh Office or the Welsh Development Agency. But those institutions have been well used by Conservative Secretaries of State to considerable effect for the benefit of Wales. Incidentally, when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—I am sorry that he is no longer in his place—talked about the block grant being distributed from Westminster, he showed his total ignorance of the way in which these things are actually managed. I know that I was given a remarkable degree of discretion by my noble friend Lady Thatcher when she was Prime Minister to use the money as I and the Welsh Office thought was desirable for the people of Wales. Those decisions were taken in Wales.
Mr. Ted Rowlands stated in the Commons:
"one of the great success stories of the past 20 years—led by the office and by the nature of the budget—has been the Secretary of State's role in attracting inward investment. He has been a pivotal force in delivering investment into Wales—double the average for the rest of the country-.—[Official Report, Commons. 25/7/97: col. 1168.]
Mr. Rowlands is right, and I am proud of what I and my successors have achieved in that respect during 18 of those 20 years.
Since 1983, when I gave the Welsh Development Agency responsibility for inward investment, approaching 1,700 new and expansion projects have been attracted to Wales, bringing a total investment of more than £11 billion. Those projects have created and safeguarded directly more than 160,000 jobs and many more jobs indirectly through associated economic growth. I and my successors were not embarrassed to use and adapt instruments presented to us by our Labour predecessors. Labour and Conservative Governments can take credit for this immense achievement. The long years of depression that afflicted generations in Wales have been ended. There is a new confidence in Wales.
It is mad folly to destroy the very instruments responsible for that achievement and to gamble recklessly with the future of Wales and the future of Britain. What was true in 1979 is even more true today. Then the instruments were untested and unproven. Today they have been proved to work. I believe it vitally important that every effort should be made over the coming weeks to preserve them.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, there are surprisingly few English names on the Speakers' List this afternoon, which is perhaps rather shortsighted of the English. I speak as an Englishman, albeit as one with a small amount of Welsh and indeed French blood, but also as a subject of Her Majesty the Queen and as a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

209
Ireland, who believes that it would be a tragedy if the bonds between us all were gradually loosened as an unintended consequence of the measures proposed.
I start by putting a question—my least important question—to the Government from a hardheaded English perspective. Will the English taxpayer have to contribute, directly or indirectly, to the considerable costs of setting up and running the Welsh assembly and the Scottish parliament? Reading the Scottish White Paper, it appears that the Scots will probably pay in full for their parliament. But the Welsh White Paper is more ambiguous. Can we have an assurance on that score?
Next, the question of privilege. It does not look as if Welsh assemblymen and assembly women will have the benefit of parliamentary privilege. But if the arrangements for Scotland are similar to those in 1978, Scots parliamentarians will. Will Scots parliamentarians be able to criticise only their fellow Scots with impunity; or will they, in the course, naturally, of their parliamentary duties, be able to say things about individuals in Cornwall, Warwickshire, Essex, the Isle of Wight, Carmarthen and Carrickfergus which might be deemed slanderous if repeated outside the four walls of the Scottish parliament? I know that the Government are looking into the whole question of parliamentary privilege, but I doubt whether their findings will be made known before the Scottish and Welsh legislation is completed.
Next, we come to the West Lothian question, which is not answered in any way by the proposed reduction in the number of Scottish seats at Westminster to 58 or thereabouts. That should have happened many years ago anyway. A few days ago the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, defended the Government's position by citing the position of Stormont when that assembly was in being and was supported in his analogy by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. What they both forgot was this. As a quid pro quo for running most of their internal affairs, the people of Ulster were allocated only 68 or 69 per cent. of the seats at Westminster which would have been due to them on a population basis. Applied to Scotland, that would give the Scots only 39 or 40 seats in the House of Commons. It is one possible and partial solution but far from the best. Would it not be better to keep the 58 Members of Parliament but introduce a strict rule in the House of Commons barring the Scots, and where applicable the Welsh, Members from voting on purely English matters? The Speaker would obviously have to decide to which legislation this applied and to which it did not.
Next, the geographically extreme parts of Scotland: in the south, the Borders, and in the north, the Orkneys and Shetlands, whose inhabitants are traditionally suspicious of mainland Scotland. Last time they voted against Edinburgh rule. It is claimed that they will vote differently this time round. But if they do not, what then?
Next, the proposed voting system, incorporating additional members on a party list. I have no objection to PR as such for these bodies but the additional member system, imported, I think, from Germany, a country which can do no wrong in the eyes of most of the
210
centre-Left, is a bad idea. It is a bad idea because, first, it gives too much power to party bosses at the expense of individualists like, for example, Mr. Tam Dalyell; and secondly, because it creates two classes of member: the first with constituency obligations and the second without any real constituency obligations. But given that this is the chosen system, my question is this: will the first-class members, so to speak, be paid substantially more than the others to compensate them for their burdensome constituency duties; and if not, why not?
Finally, I turn to the possible long-term unintended consequences of these proposals. A few days ago I pointed out, and was supported by the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Peston, that states like Delaware and Rhode Island have considerably more powers than a nation like Scotland would have under the present proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—I am sorry he is not in his place—suggested that that was an invalid comparison since the United States is so very much larger than the United Kingdom. But consider eight contiguous states in the American north east: Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland plus Washington DC. Together, they cover 97,000 square miles—almost identical to the United Kingdom's 94,000 square miles. Their population is smaller, at 43 million compared with 56 million, but that is unimportant. They form a most efficient and prosperous economic unit, yet their powers of independent law-making could not be more comprehensive.
Most obvious to someone on this side of the Atlantic—some states retain the death penalty; others have abolished it. The retentionist states, moreover, can choose the preferred method of execution. Each state can set minimum ages for marriage, sexual intercourse, obtaining a driving licence and buying a bottle of beer—the last hurdle being the most difficult one to surmount. They have different abortion laws, which is germane to the Scottish argument. They have different firearms laws. Indeed, within each state some cities have stricter firearms laws than others. (It is notable that the states with the strictest laws have the most gun crime.) There are different speed limits, different seat-belt laws, different priorities at road intersections and different rules on the use of dipped headlights, side lights and so on. There are different laws on field sports. Most states permit falconry, for instance, but one or two ban it. And of course they can set different sales taxes, state income taxes and taxes on tobacco, alcohol and so on, though competition ensures that these differences are never too great. Yet despite all these variations they function extremely successfully as an economic unit.
The Scottish nationalists and, more importantly, the much larger number of latent Scottish nationalists are not fools. More and more frequently as time goes on they are going to compare the limited powers granted to the Scottish parliament with the very much greater powers possessed by, for example, Delaware, with 13 per cent. of the population and only 6.5 per cent. of the land area, and ask perfectly logically why Scotland cannot have at least the same powers as Delaware given that no economic disadvantages are likely to ensue based on the North Atlantic experience; indeed, the

211
reverse might be the case. This question will soon evolve into more and more strident demands, matched by increasing resentment in England and, possibly even in Wales, which is all too likely to lead to the eventual break-up of the kingdom.
5.10 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, first may I apologise? I cannot stay for much more of the debate as I recently had an operation on my leg and I cannot manage to sit for very long, even on your Lordships' normally comfortable Benches.
I wish to raise two matters regarding publication and presentation of the Scottish White Paper. The distribution was completely inadequate. In Glasgow last Thursday it was virtually impossible to obtain a copy. Far too few were printed. As the outlets supplying the public had received many advance requests, the Scottish Office ought to have known that demand would be heavy, even at the rather excessive price of £6.50. Incidentally, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy failed to mention, when talking about this matter, that the beautiful photograph of Mr. Dewar actually showed him smiling.
The second matter is much more serious. Last Thursday night the Secretary of State hosted, in the historic national setting of Edinburgh Castle, what I can only describe as a triumphalist shindig launching the White Paper. The event was widely publicised. I quite understand that in the ordinary course of events Ministers are perfectly entitled to launch government policy initiatives or White Papers in that sort of way. But this is not an ordinary event or an ordinary White Paper. The White Paper is an integral part of a process in which we Scots are going to be asked to vote. Despite its uncontroversial title, the White Paper is, in tone and content, no more and no less than the manifesto setting out the Government's own chosen devolution policy.
The entertainment in Edinburgh Castle was therefore a manifesto launch party given by a Cabinet Minister at the start of a political campaign. At the end of it the Scots will vote. If we were having a general election, surely taxpayers could not be asked to pay for such an event. So it is both ugly and improper that they should in this case. I have therefore written to the Secretary of the Cabinet to ask his views as I am informed that he is the authority on these matters.
As to the White Paper overall, I am a staunch Unionist. I was a founder and vice-chairman of the "Scotland says 'No'" campaign in 1979. So it is hardly surprising that I oppose the principles the White Paper advocates. I shall campaign against it and I shall certainly vote "no" twice. I shall do so because what I care about most deeply is Scotland's long-term well-being. I know that in time, whatever Mr. Dewar's view may be to the contrary, that these proposals cannot possibly strengthen the Union but only undermine it to Scotland's ultimate and great disadvantage. I know, moreover, that those of us who oppose devolution on the grounds of our sincere devotion to Scotland's true interests, will be caricatured during the referendum campaign as somehow the unpatriotic and undemocratic
212
Anglophiles. That is what happened last time and it will happen again. But that is a small and easily tolerable price to pay for being right.
On the details of the Bill, I shall touch on only a couple of matters. The first is the politically awkward point that the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster may eventually be reviewed. The matter was handled in a style of media management that is becoming all too familiar. To no surprise it was leaked in advance so as to temper the reaction—clever stuff, no doubt. My only comment is that although 15 per cent. fewer Scottish MPs may make it 15 per cent. easier to answer the West Lothian question, you still do not answer it.
As regards tax, I could not understand why the Government so resisted our amendment on Report to limit tax-varying powers clearly and specifically to income tax. However, like my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, when I read the proposals on local taxation on page 25 of the White Paper I began to see the reason. As far as I can understand them, the proposals seem to offer very wide scope to change the local tax structure and to tax us in all sorts of ways of which we cannot know as yet.
The authors of the White Paper kindly added that a Scottish parliament would clearly need to consult business before making any changes. I remember the bad old Labour days when Scottish business rates were far higher than those in England and a fat lot of good consultation ever did us in industry at that time.
One of the Scottish Ministers, Mr. McLeish, was quoted in Saturday's Scotsman to the effect that he was attracted to the prospect of a tax-varying power which would inject something like £450 million which a careful parliament would want to spend on Scottish priorities. I shudder to think what a less than careful Scottish parliament would wish to do. He was also reported as saying that the good thing about the settlement was that it had made people sit up about what the parliament would mean. I dare say it will have done just that as far as possible future taxes, both local and national, in Scotland are concerned.
The matter that bothers me most derives from the simple and well-proven proposition that legislators like to legislate. I fear that we must look forward to the prospect of a plethora of legislation and legislative change from a Scottish parliament, and I suspect that some of it will not be done on merit but just to show that Scotland is different. It is not a prospect I relish at all; nor, I suspect, does Scotland's man in the street.
As noble Lords will have gathered, I dislike these proposals in principle.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Viscount believe that the Scottish people will put up with that sort of treatment? They have a remedy because they can put out the Government if they do not like it.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, thank you very much. As noble Lords will have gathered, I dislike these proposals in principle. They raise as many questions as they answer—or more. But there is not the time today to go into even a few of the problems. To sum it all up,

213
perhaps I may remark that, to my own great regret, what this paper simply does is to replace the nine of diamonds as the curse of Scotland.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I welcome the Welsh White Paper and I shall support it in the referendum campaign. It delivers what the Labour Party promised in its manifesto. I believe that the Welsh Secretary of State, his ministerial colleagues and officials at the Welsh Office who have produced the White Paper are to be congratulated on it. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing it forward so early in the present Parliament.
It is obvious, of course, that the proposed Welsh assembly is not as powerful as the proposed Scottish parliament. Yet let nobody underestimate its significance. Setting up an elected Welsh assembly is a crucial step forward in the history of Wales. As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Sewel and others, it should bring significant benefits to Wales. I should like briefly to summarise four in particular.
First, a directly elected assembly will bring a new impetus to Welsh life and provide a focus for democratic action in Wales.
Secondly, it will extend democratic control over widespread responsibilities for the government of Wales and will work, in the words of the White Paper, "to promote and foster" local government in line with the European charter on local self-government. I understand that the Welsh local authorities are satisfied with the role of an assembly, as set out in the White Paper.
The third significant benefit of the assembly is that it will provide a permanent forum for the Welsh nation to determine its priorities in the devolved areas and to fashion policies suited to Welsh needs within the discretion allowed by primary legislation.
The fourth significant value of an assembly is that it has at least the potential to give Wales a stronger voice within the increasingly important European Union. Those are the benefits as I see them.
I turn now to a few areas of the White Paper upon which I would welcome more information, clarification or explanation. I refer first to the Welsh block. It seems that the assembly leader and the leader of the assembly's finance committee will not have direct access to the Treasury in negotiating the Welsh block. The Welsh assembly may not be content with such an arrangement. Moreover, it seems that the Secretary of State will deduct from the Welsh block a sum to be determined by him (not necessarily in agreement with the assembly) in respect of the running of his own department and that the remainder will be handed to the assembly. The point is very obvious: the assembly may wish to have a voice in determining the split. I hope that those points, and their implications, will be borne in mind when preparing the Bill.
Secondly, since about 46 per cent. of the block fund is accounted for by local authority expenditure and about one-third by the NHS, what body is to secure the external audit of that expenditure? It seems to me that
214
that could not appropriately be undertaken by the assembly itself. It should be carried out by an external body. To my mind—the fault may well be mine—paragraph 4.37 is somewhat unclear as to the role of the Audit Commission. That leads me to another question. In the event of friction between the assembly and a sponsored body, how will that issue be resolved? Is it a matter that should be spelled out in the Bill or are the sponsored bodies to rely on judicial review?
My next question is about the important area of delegated legislation. The Welsh Office has in very recent years been making greater use of order-making powers, but it is worth making the point that we are moving into a new dimension in which a far greater range of independent work and thought is going to be needed if the assembly is to be able to pursue within the framework of primary legislation different policies from those which the central government pursues in England. Some years' experience of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments suggests that time must be given to pre-legislation consultation, but the timetable is often tight. It is envisaged in paragraph 3.40 of the White Paper that there will be close consultations between assembly officials and their counterparts involved in policy-making at Whitehall on the timing and content of secondary legislation. Moreover, we are told that the basis for those consultations will be set out in concordats. It is important that a draft of the concordats should be available when the Bill is published so that we may have ample opportunity to digest them.
There is a further point. If there is a dispute between the Government and the assembly on the content of a draft assembly order, how will it be resolved? It would appear that the White Paper may be offering two different routes: the speedy settlement procedure under paragraph 3.32 and the procedure under paragraph 3.43. It is important that the Bill deals clearly with the mechanism for resolving any friction. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the details of the speedy procedure.
My last question relates to the European dimension. I recognise that relations with the EU will remain the responsibility of the UK Government. Even so, I cannot help wondering whether enough has been proposed to give Wales a clearer and stronger voice within the EU. I shall read carefully what my noble friend Lord Sewel said when opening the debate; nevertheless, I should be heartened if the Government would consider during the summer months whether the proposals could be added to in the light of the paper Wales in Europe which has been published by the Institute of Welsh Affairs.
I end where I began by welcoming the White Paper. The Welsh White Paper is a middle solution between the status quo and the Scottish parliament. I believe that it will satisfy majority opinion in Wales. If Wales wants to face the future with confidence, it must build its future around the assembly. I hope and believe that the Welsh electorate will give Parliament the authority to implement the provisions of the White Paper.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall concentrate, if I may, on the Scottish White Paper. Given the Labour Party's manifesto commitment and the Government's inheritance of what came out of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the White Paper seems to me to be a competent document, describing clearly and concisely (admittedly with a few omissions and awkwardnesses) the arrangements that the Government have in mind.
I should like to make one main point and to illustrate it a little. The issue for the referendum voters in Scotland is whether the attractiveness, potential advantage and satisfaction for them of electing and maintaining a complete additional parliament is worth the cost—the cost in terms of the disadvantage which it is likely to bring to Scotland and any damage that it might do to the current system of co-operation which makes all parts of the United Kingdom good places in which to live.
The anticipated advantages of the price to be paid are much clearer now that the White Paper has been published. It is very important at this juncture that the Scots should understand and weigh the issue properly in the balance and that they do not simply close their eyes and agree to back the proposed scheme just because it has been long promised and is assumed to be inevitable.
North of the Border, the attractions of the White Paper are not hard to see. People would undoubtedly get a lot of satisfaction from taking part in elections to the new parliament, knowing for the first time that it was they, and only they, who were deciding who would be in charge of the Scottish Office. They would enjoy the focus that the parliament would provide and being able to follow on television and in the press what the people they had elected were up to, their debates and their decisions. People in Scotland would follow that a lot more easily than is possible for them with the Westminster Parliament, where what is UK business, what is England and Wales business and what is Scottish business is often a lot less clear than it should be.
Another plus is that such great change will create comparatively limited departmental upheaval. I do not believe that noble Lords south of the Border realise that in the main the areas of government to be devolved to the Scots parliament are almost precisely those already devolved to the Scottish Office. It is also attractive that within the constraints of its budget the Scots parliament will have very wide freedom to choose its spending priorities. People need to know of those advantages. I believe that most appreciate them but not all. There are other advantage which need to be made plain to them.
They must also understand the down-side. I refer not simply to the added cost of the parliament building, its staff, its elected members and other activities, but to the likely effect in many areas of Scottish life on incomes, businesses, jobs, good relations within the United Kingdom, Scots influence at Westminster and the workability and quality of Scots legislation.
216
For example, almost every day the Scottish media give three cheers to the Secretary of State for gaining Cabinet approval to the continuation of the present Scottish Office block grant and formula system as the main way of funding the Scots parliament. Chapter 7 and Annex B of the White Paper reveal, as noble Lords who have been in government already know—certainly I did not know—that the all-important block grant is calculated mainly not on the needs of Scotland but on a negotiated figure of the needs per head of population of England and Wales. That figure is then added to by a percentage to allow for the additional needs in Scotland. Somewhat ominously for Scotland, paragraph 7.7 on page 22 makes plain that the extra Scottish percentage is liable to revision at any time. Scots need to understand that, especially as the new transparency of funding mechanisms will make the English MPs a little more observant than they were before.
We also need to understand in Scotland the likely combined effect on business and jobs of the freedom of the Scots parliament to increase income tax and to control or not control non-domestic rates. These matters were discussed very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Weir. Those freedoms, added to the minimum wage, will be a treble whammy for Scottish jobs if the Scots parliament does not realise the implications of disregarding them. Scots who do not want the break-up of the United Kingdom—more than four out of five do not—need to realise that, although the White Paper limits the areas in which the Scots parliament can legislate, it allows it to discuss anything and apparently to promote a referendum on anything. No wonder the nationalists rejoice. The scope for stirring up trouble within the United Kingdom seems to be endless, which is very worrying. It may be that when we come to legislate we need to consider that point. Scots must also realise the implications of their reduced influence at Westminster, where the most important decisions will still be made.
The Boundary Commission review of constituencies will reduce the number of Scots MPs. In addition, it is unlikely that English MPs at Westminster, given the new arrangements, will stand for Scots MPs occupying the influential positions that they occupy at present. At the moment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary, the Economic Secretary, the Foreign and Defence Secretaries and the Minister of Transport all represent Scots constituencies. With the Secretary of State for Scotland, that means that there are six Members representing Scots constituencies in the Cabinet. I suggest that such influence in the United Kingdom is unlikely to apply to the Scots parliament. I believe that Scots should understand that.
The Dearing report has only just been published. It is too soon to say what will be the effect of the Scots parliament on the universities. The White Paper is good news in that it recognises the need to keep the funding of university research via research councils at Westminster. That is wise, and that is what the universities' and lecturers' unions want. I am sure that they are already grateful to the Government for that.

217
I should like to ask the Minister—I gave the Scottish Office Minister notice of my question—about student support. Arrangements for that matter in Scotland will be devolved. It is possible, say, that at a future date the Scots parliament will decide that Scots students must contribute only £500 to their tuition fees, whereas England and Wales students must contribute £1,000. Should that happen, who would make up the missing £500 to universities in England and Wales to which Scots students might go? How would Scots university funding be affected?
Before they vote in the referendum Scots must be able to weigh the balance of advantage and disadvantage of this White Paper. I hope that the Government will make that balance plain. If they do not there may be much dissatisfaction not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom in years to come, and everyone will know whose fault it is.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, we are all in danger of repeating ourselves on this issue. At the risk of doing so, I repeat that these White Papers are not about the end of the United Kingdom either now or in the years to come. That argument has been rehearsed again today. I hope that once the referendums have been held and there is a "Yes" vote that particular argument will come to an end.
Sometimes I feel that I have been repeating myself for the past 18 years. If I have been doing that so has the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Today not only did he repeat himself but he repeated all of the tired arguments of very old Labour in another place. I did not believe that I would live to see the day when the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, would embellish his speeches with the collective thoughts of Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Denzil Davies and Mr. Ted Rowlands.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies never repeats himself. He has yet again posed sharp questions for Ministers on the detailed content of the White Paper. He is able to do so because this is a sharp and intelligent White Paper. I pay tribute to the Welsh Office Ministers. I never thought that I would live to see the conversion of the Ron Davies that I knew and loved 25 years ago into the St. Ron whom I now worship and follow everywhere. To progress from boyo politician to national leader is a tremendous achievement, and I salute him in all seriousness. One makes light of these matters, but when there is a "Yes" vote his achievement will go down in the history of Wales.
My text for today is paragraph 3.3 of the White Paper, which refers to the national assembly for Wales—as I shall now describe it following yesterday's debate—in the following terms:
"[It] will complete the chain of democratic accountability running all the way from the community council through unitary local authorities and Westminster on to the European Union".
That is a point which I understand noble Lords opposite who are believers in a sovereign unitary state have difficulty in following. In my view that is not an adequate description of how the UK functions. Their
218
ideal model of a state is replicated nowhere in the world, as far as I can see. Indeed, all members of the EU have a regional structure. The leading exception, of course, is the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it does.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am sorry, it does. I stand corrected. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg does have a regional structure. If the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has a regional structure surely the UK—see how I can adapt my arguments—of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should have one.
It is significant that there is a correlation between devo-sceptics and Euro-sceptics in our debate. The assembly for Wales, when it is established, will have laid on it the responsibilities as set out in the White Paper. It will debate all issues of concern to Wales. It will of course have due regard and respect for equal opportunities, equal status for the languages, and for sustainable development. I am certain that—if I may so refer to him in this context—my friend the Prince of Wales will find time in his busy, active diary, supporter of green policies that he is, to open the Welsh assembly for us, contrary to what is said in this morning's Guardian.
The assembly's functions are important in the field of the economy. Again, I congratulate the Welsh Office on its intention to establish a new economic powerhouse—the expanded WDA, so ably led by Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe. It is the envy of inward investment generators worldwide. It is an example of the way devolution can work. It is a devolved executive arm of the Welsh Office. It was given further autonomy by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It was thus able to be more effective. The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that devolution somehow will damage inward investment are proved to be fallacious by the very results of his giving devolved power to the WDA on inward investment, which he did so successfully when he was Secretary of State.
I wish also to pay tribute to the Development Board for Rural Wales which has served my former constituency of Merioneth extremely well since 1976. The bringing together of the rural expertise of the development board and the expertise of the Land Authority, again led so ably by Sir Geoffrey Inkin, and the WDA, will provide a team for economic development which will be at least as successful in the future as the WDA has been in the past.
I also welcome—here I declare an interest as chair of the Welsh Language Board—the announcement in the White Paper of the proposal to transfer the unelected bodies into the assembly. It may be unusual for people to wish their own demise. I do not wish my own demise. I do not wish the demise of the activity of the body which I chair, but I wish to see that body open and democratically accountable. We try to be so. At our last board meeting we decided to open our doors to the public. I hope that other public bodies will feel able to

219
do the same. We have done that because these are new times in Wales and we anticipate being made accountable, in whatever form, to the new assembly.
Finally, I welcome the extremely important duties and powers of the assembly in relation to Europe. I congratulate the Government. They have gone much further than I ever thought that they would. I do not mean further in the direction of European membership for an independent Wales, in case Conservatives try to bring up that issue. They have gone further in building up the regional partnerships within the UK as part of the EU, because that is what they are talking about.
We are talking about an assembly which will be able to have equivalent scrutiny powers to the powers that we have in the European Communities Committee of the House, upon which I am privileged to serve. The assembly will have relations with the UK delegation in Brussels. It will have charge of structural funds, and, through the Secretary of State, it will be able to represent the interests of Wales in the Council of Ministers, and as I understand from what my noble friend Lord Sewel said earlier, the executive of the assembly itself will be able to participate in an observer capacity in some of its discussions.
It is an admirable way of operating. It will bring to the UK presence in the EU the regional depth which other member states already have. In particular, it will strengthen the work of the Wales European Centre. The direct election of members of the Committee for the Regions from among assembly members in Cardiff will again strengthen the profile of Wales as a European region alongside all the other regions about which we hear so often, not least, of course, Catalonia and the German Länder. Most of all, the assembly will provide the focus for activity and debate. It will be a focus for the new inclusive politics about which we have heard so clearly from our Secretary of State, Ron Davies, and my noble friend Lord Sewel today.
I make one final plea—I am afraid again repeating myself—to the Conservative Party. It is the only party in Wales or the UK which is distancing itself from the whole issue. It is choosing to stand aside. It is taking a negative attitude. Mr. William Hague, whom again I regard as a friend, following his time as our governor-general when he was in the Welsh Office, has already signalled that things may change. He will accept the verdict of the people in a referendum. That is a little inconsistent and disingenuous. If the Conservative Party is prepared to accept the verdict of the people in a referendum now, it should accept that the arguments for a Welsh assembly and a Scottish parliament are a legitimate part of its own political history as well. Members of the Conservative Party in this House who have espoused devolutionary views in the past will know what I am talking about.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will forgive me if I do not follow up his speech, except to say that I am afraid that I disagree with most of it. I shall confine myself to the Scottish devolution problem. Devolution for Scotland needs to be considered
220
from a broad constitutional point of view as well as from a purely Scottish point of view. In the broad context, we need to remember that owing to an immense increase in travel facilities and communications there has been a tendency throughout the world, especially in this century, for communities to become less isolated and less inward looking and to co-operate more and more with an ever wider range of neighbouring communities, and indeed to become part of them. The gradual formation of the UK over several centuries is for us of course the best and most important example of that.
I come now to Scotland. In Scotland we now have three tiers of democratic government which work well. In the first tier we have districts, many of which replace the old counties, and we have city councils. In the second tier we have regions which are big. There are only seven of them in Scotland.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, they no longer exist.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may be of some assistance. Two years ago the Government reorganised local government in Scotland. We no longer have districts or regions. We have unitary authorities. So a system of Westminster, a Scottish parliament and local authorities is the three-tier system which the noble Lord advocates.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for bringing me up to date. I tried to refresh my memory by looking at a recent map, which obviously was not up to date. I should have remembered that because I spend a lot of my time in Scotland.
In any event, we have a system of local and central government in Scotland which works well. The Scottish Office has a fine reputation for understanding the people's needs and for representing them efficiently and effectively at Westminster. In some respects, according to the White Paper, it will continue to do so after devolution.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for sending to me a copy of a letter which he sent yesterday to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He stresses the point by stating:
"The UK Parliament is and will remain sovereign in all matters".
He goes on to say:
"However, if it approves the Government's proposals it will be choosing to exercise that sovereignty by devolving legislative responsibility to the Scottish Parliament"—
and he added the words, which I underlined—
"without diminishing its own powers".
But how can one have devolution from the centre without some diminishing of the powers that were exercised at the centre? That seems to me to be like having one's cake and eating it.
I suggest that the present system works well. Nobody can say that the government of Scotland is remote. The people already have democratic government locally and

221
centrally. Indeed, when I am in Scotland I often feel that they believe they have it on their doorsteps. I say that if change is not necessary it is necessary not to change.
I was tempted to go into the question of the conflict which arises between the responsibility of the Secretary of State and of the United Kingdom Government in European Union matters when the Scottish parliament and executive are to have some responsibilities. However, there appears to be a complicated conflict which we should not overlook.
I conclude on a more general and perhaps higher note. I remind your Lordships of the great influence which Scots have had in the United Kingdom, but especially in England, since the Act of Union. To a great extent, they helped to build the British Empire and the Commonwealth. Scots have undoubtedly had great influence in our Westminster Parliament. In the 70 years between 1894 and 1964, we had seven Scottish Prime Ministers. They covered a period of 25 years out of the 70 years. As regards Lord Chancellors, the record is even more impressive. Admittedly, a longer period is covered, but since 1801, 10 Lord Chancellors have been Scotsmen. Nine of them came from the English Bar, the only one from the Scottish Bar being my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who had a long spell as Lord Chancellor. Between them, those 10 Lord Chancellors covered 56 of the almost 200 years since 1801.
The truth is that the Scots have had the best of both worlds and I should like to see them continue to have it. I am the son of a Scottish doctor who wisely followed Dr. Johnson's advice, which was, "The finest prospect a Scotsman ever sees is the high road to England". My father was a doctor who practised in Kent. The other and wider world has given to the Scottish people the advantage of being British and of exercising power, influence and authority beyond their native land. I fear that devolution will tend to keep them in their native land and cause them to lose some of that advantage. Let us hope that Scottish voters will see where their interests lie!
5.55 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not intend to speak for long because everything has been said. However, it is a pity that all those Scottish Lord Chancellors, Prime Ministers and Peers did not stay at home and build a better Scotland. I hope that that will happen—
The Earl of Onslow: What are you doing?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we try. I am very pleased with the Government. The Tories keep saying that the Liberal Democrats are in the pockets of the Government, but we are delighted with the Government. They are promoting a policy that we have been advocating for 50 years, not for 20 years. The White Paper is much better than I thought it would be. The Government have gone a long way and of course I am pleased with them. When I am pleased with them I shall say so and when I am displeased with them
222
I shall say so, but at the moment they are doing exactly what we in the Scottish Liberal Democrat Party have rightly wanted for years.
Many proposals in the White Paper strike me as good. I was pleased to see in particular that Scottish investment and enterprise would come under the Scottish parliament. That is vital. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said that devolvement to Wales of the investment policy had been splendid. However, the people who showed us the way were those in the Stormont Parliament 45 years ago. If someone then expressed an interest in building a factory in Scotland we had to tell them that there may be someone who dealt with it. But Stormont had set up a body which encouraged investors, showed them around and did everything to bring them into Northern Ireland. We did so much later, but Stormont was a devolved parliament doing a good job for the country. We shall need that in the future.
As regards agriculture, the split between the Westminster and Scottish parliaments can work perfectly well. However, a great deal of investment and work must go directly into Scottish agriculture in order to promote excellent products. We are entering an extremely tough time. Every party in this country is advocating a free market, which will need organisation if ever anything did. A good example is the Dutch who, from the most unhealthy part of Europe lying below sea level and as a result of good organisation, have managed to sell Dutch seed potatoes far better than we have sold Scots seed potatoes. That is an example of what a Scottish devolved parliament close to the people could do. I am looking forward to it being a major factor in the development of Scotland.
Finally, I hear the Tory Party carping about the proposal and prophesying death, destruction and the break-up of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said that terrible things would be imposed on the Scottish people. I make the point that I made to the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, that if the Scottish people are foolish enough to elect people who act against their interests they will deserve all they get. However, they may have the power to elect good people. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, say that he will stand. I hope that he will stand as an opponent, but if he is not elected he can slip his name on a list somewhere else. The proposal represents a chance for good people to go into the Scottish parliament and do a great deal of good for Scotland and its people. They will not need to go to England, but they can go if they wish. It is a nice place, with nice people, but the Scots should have a chance to stay at home and make a good job of Scotland.
6 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, opened the debate in his usual apparently rational and courteous way by saying that the Government are adopting a non-adversarial approach towards this great constitutional question. He may have persuaded himself of that, but he will have to do a much harder sell to noble Lords on these Benches and to the country outside. I say that because we remember, and shall go

223
on remembering, how the Government guillotined in the Commons the Bill which we have just debated and so prevented any full and rational examination of it. They left it to us to debate it properly. By one of those ironies of political life, while we are debating in a courteous and rational way the principles of devolution, the other place is probably brushing aside the well constructed, justified amendments which were carried. I believe that there were only three on this occasion.
Let us tell noble Lords on the Benches opposite that if they believe that the Welsh people will be persuaded by the specious arguments which the Government adduced to support having the referendums in Wales and Scotland on different dates, they must under-estimate the perspicacity and intelligence of my fellow countrymen. For various reasons they may have the ear of the noble Lord. Lord Elis-Thomas, whose charming speech I so much appreciated. I assure the noble Lord that the Conservative Party—and I am proud to call myself a Welsh Unionist—is certainly not standing apart from the debate. Indeed, if I am given an opportunity I shall be very happy to involve myself in that debate west of Offa's Dyke. We feel that it is right and proper that we should consider seriously what are the advantages not only to Wales and Scotland but also to the United Kingdom as a whole, and even to England, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, before we commit ourselves to becoming involved in what seems to us at first blush—and after all, we have had only a week or so to consider the proposals and we have not heard any very full details in defence of them from any government Minister—the voyage of discovery on which the Government wish to embark this country.
In the time available, the House will be relieved to know that I shall confine myself to Wales. However, there is so much to discuss about the Scottish White Paper. I was interested to find that the Welsh White Paper is twice as long but half as expensive as the Scottish White Paper. But, of course, half of the Welsh White Paper is in Welsh. It is interesting that the Scottish White Paper is only in English and not in Gaelic as well. The Government may wish to reflect on that. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is obviously bilingual and would no doubt love to address his fellow countrymen north of the Border in Gaelic. But let us leave that aside.
The White Paper, attractively printed and voluminous as it is, is long on political cliché but very short on serious analysis of the real underlying political problems. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is one noble Lord, detached from the cares of government, who has perhaps most persuasively advanced the arguments which he feels apply for its adaption in Wales. The White Paper is entitled A Voice for Wales. That says a little bit about the White Paper. My fellow countrymen are known for their fluency. They are perhaps not appreciated for it but they are known for it. They have four tiers of government inside the Principality in which to exercise their oratorical talents. Do they really need a fifth? That is worth pondering. Of course we are all products of elective democracy but there comes a time when one must stop debating and actually get down to action.
224
Let us look at what action will be available and let us look also at the structure of a devolved government for Wales. First, there is the Secretary of State himself. In advance, I offer my profound sympathy to anyone who is offered that office because he will not be answerable for the Welsh assembly. However, whether or not that is formally the case, he will be bound to be answerable to it because he is going to sit there. He will no doubt be compelled to defend the Government's position on a whole range of delicate questions like the amount of the block grant and such matters. But he will also be answerable to the Parliament at Westminster. He will sit uneasily in the Cabinet. I suspect that he will be loved and admired by nobody. Perhaps that is the wish of the Labour Party. Perhaps it wants an emasculated Secretary of State for Wales; so be it.
Let us come on to the MPs who currently have the privilege of representing Welsh constituencies. They will have noticed that the future of the Welsh Grand Committee is clouded in obscurity and not yet decided. It will be one of the oddities of this solution, if it is adopted by Parliament, that Welsh MPs NNW be able to comment on a range of sectors of government in England but disabled from so doing in Wales because they will be a matter for debate in the Welsh assembly.
One could elaborate on the very delicate position in which Welsh MPs will find themselves. I do not believe that their voice will be enhanced. No one has had the temerity to talk about the west Glamorganshire question or anything like that. Perhaps we should ask the honourable gentleman from the other place, Mr. Dalyell, to come along and apply his keen, analytical talents to the position of Welsh Members, whether they are over-represented, and how they should be treated. I suspect that the pressures will grow, if this assembly really takes off, to limit the number of Welsh MPs or to limit their scope for intervention in debates in the other place. Therefore, if they think carefully about it, I do not believe that they will appreciate what is proposed.
Let us turn to the assembly members themselves. They have no power to raise taxes but they are responsible for funding local authorities, although central government will still retain the power to cap local authority budgets. That will not be a very enviable role. As regards their executive powers, their entry into power will be preceded by a massacre of quangos. I do not know whether that will really assist Wales. Noble Lords from both sides of the House have paid unstinting tribute to the Welsh Development Agency. I do not believe that its power and effectiveness will be enhanced by rolling it into one massive overall quango.
I turn now to relations with Europe. It is readily admitted that there will be no place for members of the assembly in a Council of Ministers. But, graciously, officials answerable to the assembly may be offered places at UKREP in Brussels. Yes, there will be some influence. As regards ambassadors for Wales, I do not believe that they will be given that kind of credit. There may be quantity but I suspect that there will not be quality. There may be some influence but there will be no powerful voice in Europe.

225
In short, I believe that the proposals in regard to Wales will result in a multiplication of debate, of officials and of cost. They will create a breeding ground for friction between Westminster and Cardiff and will prove a positive discouragement to foreign investment in Wales. They will damage and not strengthen the United Kingdom and Wales. That is why, if the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will forgive me, I will go on about the slippery slope and I continue to consider the relationship between Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole because that is one of the fundamental questions which deserves much more serious consideration than has been given to it by the White Paper.
The United Kingdom has for something over 400 years, perhaps slightly longer bearing in mind the identity of the leader of my party in this House, been a successful political entity. Indeed, I believe that we can go back to Henry VII who brought numerous bright, intelligent and thrusting young Welshmen, like his ancestors, to this side of Offa's Dyke. If we go on to consider the Union of the Crown, the number of penniless Scotsmen who came down to marry English heiresses and acquire English and Welsh properties was considerable. Therefore, let us not hear that Scotland and Wales, and Scotsmen and Welshmen, have not benefited from the Union of the Crown and the Union of the kingdom.
The United Kingdom has acted as a player on the world stage providing scope both at home and abroad for the energy and talents of inhabitants from whatever part of these islands. I hope that the residents of Wales and Scotland—not the Welsh and Scots, because, again, one must recognise that there are a huge number of Welshmen and Scotsmen who live south of the Border and east of Offa's Dyke—who are the only people entitled to participate in the referendums, and ultimately Parliament itself, will put aside these ill-thought out proposals so that we can concentrate on the real problems of these islands which call for solution.
6.11 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the highest praise that I can give to the White Paper is that it is very well laid out, clear, and easy to read and understand. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, told us during the Committee stage of the referendums Bill that even the thickest of us would be able to understand it. Well, he was right. I warmly congratulate all those responsible for producing it. The content is another matter. I think that it is a better scheme than that on offer in the 1970s, but I am very sad that we have come to this point, for I think that we are in a heads you lose and tails you do not win situation. If this does not work—and I am very much afraid that it will not—it will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom; but, if we do nothing, I believe that that will also lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I only hope that I am wrong.
I turn now to some points of detail. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, the West Lothian question has still been mainly ignored. Reduction in the number of MPs at Westminster, although very necessary, is no
226
answer to it. Leaving it to the House of Commons to consider future arrangements for Scottish business is only a partial answer. I fear that the only real answer lies in a federal system, where the devolved powers would be identical for all parts of the UK. Did I detect a glimmer of hope that the Government are beginning to realise this?
We have been told that the Scottish Parliament is to be up and running by the year 2000. We are now at the end of July 1997, only two years and five months away from the year 2000. We are told in paragraph 10.6 of the White Paper that the Old Royal High School, which we had always assumed would be the parliament, may not be suitable and that a new parliament may have to be built. I have read in press reports, although it may not be true, that a worldwide competition may be held for the design. A new site may have to be acquired and planning consent obtained before building can begin—or, can Secretaries of State override planning authorities? If the Government think that they are going to have a new building of any more permanence and dignity than a pre-fab or a conglomeration of portacabins ready in the time available, in straight Scots parlance, they must be daft.
Perhaps I may refresh your Lordships' memories about the building of this beautiful palace. The old Palace of Westminster was destroyed by fire in 1834. The competition for the design of its replacement was announced on 24th August 1835, and the closing date was 1st December of that year. Barry's winning entry was number 64 out of 97. No estimates had been asked for. The foundation stone was eventually laid on 27th April 1840. The Lords moved into this gorgeous Chamber in 1874, and the Commons into theirs, which had had to be rebuilt because they did not like it, in 1850. That took 12 to 15 years.
I am sure that nothing so elaborate is contemplated for Scotland, but 129 MSPs will all want an office each and room for their secretaries, so it would have to be a sizeable building. I cannot for the life of me see how anything suitable could possibly be ready in the time available.
Surely the only sensible thing to do is to use the High School and the offices across the road, with modifications, at least to start with and then see how it goes. If it is not satisfactory, then is the time to consider a new building. Apart from anything else—such as, the cost—experience in the High School would point to the pitfalls to be avoided in the design of a new building.
If we are to have a new building, let it at least be a dignified building in dressed stone, in traditional style, designed by a firm of Scottish architects experienced in that kind of work, not some construction of glass and steel designed by some foreigner wanting to make a statement and gain publicity. Moreover, let it be in the centre of Edinburgh, near the railway station, not away in Leith, although I have to say that one of the arguments I have heard against the Leith site—namely, that it would be undignified because it is adjacent to Safeways—is quite ridiculous. I wish this palace were adjacent to Safeways, and I expect quite a number of your Lordships do too.

227
I liked the suggestion in a letter to the Scotsman last Friday, from one Mr. H. L. Smith, that the Monument on the top of Calton Hill should be expanded with a kind of Parthenon-style building to provide a great debating chamber, linked by lifts and tunnels to the Old Royal High School and St. Andrew's House. That is the kind of suggestion that should be listened to.
I have a few short questions for the Minister regarding other matters. The first concerns the liability to pay what, for the want of a better phrase, I shall call the tartan tax. What would be the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Scottish Law Officer to the Government of the United Kingdom—what a mouthful!—or, indeed, any Scottish MPs at Westminster, who may well spend more time in London than in Scotland and therefore might be able honestly to claim that their principal residence is not in Scotland but in England? Would they, or would they not, be liable to pay that tax?
My next question concerns cost. We are told that the Scottish parliament will cost £20 million to £30 million a year to run. What we have not been told is what the salaries and allowances of the MSPs will be. We are also told in the White Paper that there will be a "First Minister" and a "team of Scottish Ministers". How many Ministers is it anticipated that that team will consist of, and what will their and the First Minister's salaries be? Indeed, what will the salaries of the MSPs be? I foresee a possible problem because, if those salaries should be less than those of Westminster MPs, there will be a definite disincentive for candidates to stand for the Scottish parliament as opposed to the Westminster Parliament.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I, too, should like to talk about Scotland. I expect that what I have to say about Scotland applies equally to Wales, and perhaps more so. The proposition for Wales, with no power to tax on offer, seems to me to be a very expensive garden fence over which, at best, the Welsh will be able to indulge their predilection for conversation but, at worst, might have some fearful battles, as my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Rees, pointed out.
A view of events is frequently moulded by a family's history, even if it no longer includes a direct interest. Mine is one of an ancient Scottish ancestry which came to an end in Scotland when my great-uncle died in 1951 and the Dalzell Estate was compulsorily purchased by the borough of Motherwell. Until the early 19th century we owned three estates in Scotland, but two of them had to be sold following the failure of the socialist experiments of Robert Owen which were aimed at resolving the terrible unemployment which followed the Napoleonic wars.
My three times great-grandfather was a serious minded man who felt that something should be done to alleviate the plight of the men who had saved Britain and Europe from Napoleon. He became a friend of Owen and financed an experiment of his own, modelled on Owen's. It has always been an object lesson to me
228
that his good intentions should already have come to a dismal end by 1826 and that human nature should have proved so conclusively that socialism as an ideal was doomed to failure.
Nearly 200 years later this lesson has now been learnt from Soviet Russia even to the inner enclaves of the Labour Party but not, it seems, in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, talked about flat learning curves. I wonder why that might be. Is it because we have created a dependency culture through the massive subsidies that are received?
Leaving Scotland was a difficult decision for my father. I now thank my lucky stars that he did. I do not want to have to pay for a new Scottish experiment. However, I still have a feeling of empathy with my Scottish roots and sympathy for the Scottish people. I do not believe that the Westminster Government have in the past behaved with great sensibility towards them. The coincidences which led to the poll tax being introduced first in Scotland, followed by the reorganisation of the local authorities which happened there but hardly at all in England, helped fuel the impression that it was a good idea to try political changes on the dog, so to speak, in Scotland before feeding them to the English. It is in that vein that I ask myself why, when ostensibly the purpose of the referendum on devolution is designed to ask the Scottish and Welsh what they would like, the Government are so determined to campaign and manipulate it so that the answer is yes.
I appreciate that there is some hubris coming from my compatriots with their lowland accents, who so nearly brought British industry to its knees in the 1970s. At long last they have regained political power. They doubtless hope that it will never be taken away again, at least not in Scotland. However, that view does not seem to me to coincide with what we are given to believe is new Labour. Are we to have a division between new Labour in England and old Labour in Scotland? The answer is probably yes, but I cannot see that that would be an object worth striving for. The demands of old Labour cannot be met by the Treasury.
If you want to find the answer to this question, I believe you should look carefully at the financial arrangements for the new Scottish parliament. It appears to me that the devolution proposed for Scotland, with its limited powers to tax and spend, bears a considerable similarity to the proposals governing the introduction of the single currency in Europe with all its political disadvantages. There, ostensible powers to tax and spend are to be strictly governed by budgetary limits to be reinforced by a stability pact which would levy fines on a miscreant European government.
Paragraphs 7.22 to 7.28 in the Scottish White Paper lay out the means by which most of the freedom to tax and spend will be controlled by budgetary limits set by Westminster, to be enforced by fines. I point out that this is the total of tax. I do not deny the statement of my noble friend Lord Mackay that the method of raising the tax may change. The fines will be the withdrawal of what are, in

229
effect, convergence funds provided by UK taxpayers. Paragraph 7.22 states,
"The Government's objective is to establish clear lines of accountability for local government spending and taxation. Its aim is a system in which fiscal self-discipline is reinforced … by the obligation on the Scottish Parliament to absorb any costs for UK taxpayers flowing from decisions on local government finance".
That covers the block grant which will diminish in response to any deviations.
Paragraph 7.23 includes central government support for local authority expenditure in the new block grant. Paragraph 7.24 states,
"The remainder of local authority self-financed expenditure, which consists largely of council tax revenue will, as at present, fall outwith the Scottish Parliament's assigned budget … The Scottish Parliament will have the powers to control local authority current expenditure, through capping or other means".
However, after all that, paragraph 7.24 continues,
"If growth relative to England were excessive and were such as to threaten targets set for public expenditure as part of the … UK economy"—
let us suppose a deficit of 3 per cent. of GDP—
"and the Scottish Parliament nevertheless chose not to exercise its powers, it would be open to the UK Government to take the excess into account in considering the level of their support for expenditure in Scotland"—
in effect, the fines. The measure is therefore open to the same criticisms as are levied at the single currency. You can have only one Minister of finance and the political independence which is left when there is no budgetary autonomy is largely illusory. It covers only how a limited amount of money can be raised and spent rather than how much.
The sort of Labour government which seem likely to be elected in Scotland may well have a penchant for high taxation and high spending. They will be restricted in that ambition to the £450 million yield from their 3p. latitude in income tax. Once spent, that will be that.
Many noble Lords have pointed out that there is a strong possibility that once a Scottish parliament is elected it will want to have more power over its own affairs, leading to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I agree with that. It is no different from what I suspect would be the reaction of all the British people if they chose to share their sovereignty with Europe in this way.
It is extremely frustrating for a government to be defeated for reasons which they ascribe to someone else—ask any Conservative councillor. However, the most difficult problem arises when the electorate, having exercised their democratic right to change their government, find that it makes no difference to their situation. The new government may have insufficient powers to raise income to fulfil their electoral mandate. I watch with interest the scene in France following the election there. The danger is that M. Jospin's abandonment of his election pledges will lead to political instability.
Scotland is being devolved on the European model. It is being offered subsidiarity to the United Kingdom Government by giving it a measure of sovereignty rather than having a measure taken away. Poor old Scotland.
230
I reckon that the dog will surely die. My message to the Scots is that it seems unlikely that either this House or the Conservative Party can save you from the fate which is coming your way. But take heed; you may be induced to believe by Mr. Alex Salmond that there is more money available in the European Community than there is in the United Kingdom. However, the Germans, ravaged by a series of what might be called asymmetric shocks from eastern Europe, are getting tired of being the paymasters. Ask yourselves, who will succeed them and before you fall into this trap for goodness sake vote no in the coming referendum.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill: My Lords, it is with a special sense of pride and a feeling of the completion of a task that I speak in this debate to welcome the White Paper, Scotland's Parliament.
There was real excitement last Thursday in Edinburgh when the White Paper was published and the feeling in Scotland over the weekend was entirely positive. I know that there is a great deal of work still to be done and I am keen to play a part in that process. However, by 11th September I both hope and expect that we shall be able to say that a piece of unfinished business is well on its way to completion. There is an almost tangible feeling of expectation in the air which means that this time Scotland will not stand back from the challenge.
The scheme which the White Paper represents goes further than the scheme which was in place in the 1970s. It has been improved and modernised for the next millennium. I never thought that the old scheme should be reintroduced, regardless of what had happened since. The previous proposal was right for the time; this one is right for now, and for the future.
I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the essence of the case for devolution which has been argued about for so long in Scotland. Administrative functions have long been devolved to the Scottish Office. They cover all the matters which most affect the lives of the people of Scotland—health, education, housing, local government, the environment, and much more. The issue has been that the degree of democratic accountability which could be provided by this House and the other place was no longer adequate.
What has been so long lacking is a direct democratic control over those Scottish Office functions so that the resources can be managed in a way which more closely reflects the wishes of the Scottish electorate. This White Paper recognises the strength of feeling in Scotland over many years. Sometimes I feel there is a limited understanding down here in London of the feelings north of the Border. Insensitivity on a grand scale has been shown by the former government, and the sense of alienation felt by the Scots was not just against the government of the day but more generally aimed at the process of government itself. That is potentially very damaging.
In the interests of the democratic process, this proposal is therefore very important indeed. And it will also demonstrate that what the Scots really want is a greater and proper degree of independence within the

231
United Kingdom. I have no doubt that this is the best way to develop and strengthen the government of the UK and is not the first step on some mythical slippery slope.
The proposals recognise Scotland's distinct identity and the strong ties that bind us with the other nations of the UK. These plans will modernise our constitution and give added strength to the partnership of the United Kingdom. A Scottish parliament will give Scotland a new sense of self-confidence and self-esteem. The Government are to be congratulated on the White Paper, which meets these aspirations. It completes the task set by the Government's manifesto and I believe that it should command the support of the whole House.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I regret that I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that I regarded his opening of the debate as a most inadequate explanation and elaboration of what is contained in the White Paper. We have only one day in your Lordships' House not only to consider the White Paper for Scotland but also the White Paper for Wales. More significantly, we have no other parliamentary opportunity before the referendum to consider any of the detail or to ask any further question about it. I am surprised that the noble Lord has given no regard to the myriad queries which have arisen from the White Paper for Scotland since that first uncritical triumphalist fest at Edinburgh Castle last Thursday. It simply will not do to describe the reactions of all those who have asked questions about what is contained in the White Paper as hysterical. Many of us who disapprove of the White Paper bow to no one in our belief in the distinctiveness either of the Scottish legal system or the Scottish education system. We shall not be silenced. We shall not be told that it is not our right to ask questions about them.
In launching the White Paper for Scotland last week—my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish spotted the point as well—the Secretary of State for Scotland said in a ringing conclusion that this renewal would strengthen the United Kingdom. May I put the point to the Government in what is personally a rather painful way? Fewer people in Scotland believe that to be true than voted for the Conservative Party at the last election. Something less than 17 per cent. of Scotland believe that that will be the outcome. What troubles me is that those people in Scotland have recognised what the Secretary of State has not recognized: that there is an inherent instability in the arrangements he has put forward; and that the Government have caused that instability by exciting contradictory expectations.
Paragraph 4.2 states:
"The UK Parliament is and will remain sovereign in all matters".
I entirely agree with that expression of constitutional thought. It is classic Diceyan analysis. I believe that it is correct; and indeed I support it. The difficulty is that the White Paper is said to be based on what is contained in the workings of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The trouble is that time and again, with a rather garbled understanding of what Lord President
232
Cooper said in the famous McCormick case in 1953, the constitutional convention has said that that is not where sovereignty lies: it is in some inchoate way invested in the people of Scotland.
It is not simply the Scottish Constitutional Convention that has taken a completely different attitude. In his maiden speech on the Second Reading of the referendums Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, said:
"Lord Cooper, in his celebrated 1953 court judgment, was quite specific about it. lie said: 'The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament"—
as expressed in the White Paper—
"is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law"'.
The noble Lord continued:
"It is important that that is understood".—[Official Report, 17/6/97; col. 1124.]
Perhaps I may say this to him. There is one group in this country which has certainly not understood that; and that is the Government.
We then look to see what that exciting of different contradictory expectations will lead to: where it will lead to tensions being exacerbated and not relieved. As regards chapter 3, some seem to consider that the proposal that those matters be reserved constitutes a satisfactory solution. Let me test the issue briefly in this way. Let us set aside the points of conflict that are likely to emerge over issues which as yet we cannot precisely predict if the parliament is to be established in Scotland. However, let us test it against some of the contemporary political issues in Scotland.
I well recollect while in Government the keenness of anxiety, in particular among those who live in the north of Scotland, when some Whitehall departments suggested that we should have summer-time and double summer-time. I wonder whether those who live in Orkney and the Shetlands in the north of Scotland realise that the question of summer-time and double summer-time will be exclusively reserved for the UK Parliament. Do those Scots also appreciate that while solicitors will be within the remit of the Scottish parliament, astonishingly estate agents and insolvency practitioners will rest within the jurisdiction of this Parliament?
I might wish for those things to happen, but I am concerned that this instability is built into the system. I do not see that the situation has been resolved in a way which relieves that pressure.
The last of my examples—perhaps I may take some credit for it—relates to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and any legislative change affecting the Act. That matter is to be reserved for the United Kingdom Parliament. After raising that point in debate with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I am delighted to note that it will remain here. Drugs found in the north-west of Scotland are often destined for London, and drugs seized at Dover are often destined for Glasgow; so we want a united approach on that great social evil of our time. But if it is to be reserved for the UK Parliament, I invite your Lordships to reflect on this. Let us imagine, as happens from time to time, that we have a weekend

233
of drug deaths in Glasgow. The local MSP goes to Edinburgh and says, "We must do something about this. We cannot allow this to continue in its present form". Let us imagine that he is told by the presiding officer, or whatever he will be called, that nothing can be done about the legislative position because that is a matter for this Parliament. It leaves in place some real points of conflict.
I turn to the position of the "third man". Unable to resolve the arrangements that are presently in place for the Scottish Law Officers, in contra-distinction to the 1978 scheme the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are to go to the Scottish parliament. In the most byzantine of conclusions, the only way in which the matter is resolved is by putting in place a third man, a new Scottish Law Officer. That seems an unworkable solution, undermining the position of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, who, as the Faculty of Advocates so rightly states, is effectively the cornerstone of our distinctive legal system.
With my innate sense of indolence, it is a job that I would dearly like to occupy. I cannot see what that officer would have to do other than to provide himself as a luncheon companion for an under-employed Secretary of State who had just completed his most important annual task: determining who was to be on his guest list for the visit of the Moderator of the General Assembly.
It is said in the history of the office of the Lord Advocate that at one time he occupied a small, dark room somewhere in the Home Office. I fear that that is the room to which this third man will eventually be sent. It is, in short, a second-class solution for what I believe to be a first-class legal system. It will reduce the proud, independent legal system of Scotland to nothing more than a regional variation.
Finally, I turn briefly to the matter of taxation. I wish to pose a number of questions to the Minister who will reply. I hasten to say that I do not expect him to give me answers to them, because I believe I know the answer to all of them—it is yes. However, I shall pose them; if I am wrong, I should be grateful if he would arrange for someone to write and correct me.
To turn first to paragraph 7.26, which my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish correctly identified as dealing with the key issue in relation to taxation, am I correct in saying that a parliament would have power to impose a local income tax without a 3p. limit, or indeed without any limit at all? Secondly, would it have power to abolish the unified business rate entirely and return the levying of non-domestic rates to individual local authorities. Thirdly, would it have power in accordance with former Labour Party policy to remove the exemption from rating of agricultural land and buildings? Fourthly would it be entirely open to a Scottish Parliament to institute a rating arrangement for Moss Morran, St. Fergus, Flotta and Sullom Voe, which would be a system entirely different to that covering either Teesside or Bacton? If I am wrong in my belief that the answer to all those questions is an unequivocal yes, I look forward to an early response from the Scottish Office.
234
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that it was no bad thing that a parliament should have powers to tax. That may be an argument, but the Government have been remarkably coy in telling people just how extensive that tax-raising power might be. I hope that now, after Mr. Henry McLeish has been open about the matter that he looks forward to spending the 3p. on income tax, at least we shall enjoy rather more open debate. If nothing else comes out of the two days' debate here and in the House of Commons, I trust that the people of Scotland will realise that what is proposed for them in terms of taxation is not at most a further 3p. on income tax but the prospect of almost infinite variation of the taxation that might be put upon them.
6.44 p.m.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I shall attempt to be brief, bearing in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, holds the record up to now of four minutes. As the twenty-third speaker in a debate in this learned Chamber, it is difficult to think of anything new to say. However, one of the advantages of speaking in this position is that other noble Lords have made points that one can pick up. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is not in his seat. I should like to take him to task on a point that he made about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, whose defence of the United Kingdom is certainly not a dishonourable course. I imagine that many noble Lords and noble Baronesses will be extremely worried about the "breaking up of the United Kingdom" aspect of the legislation. So it is a perfectly fair point to raise.
Had the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, been in his place I should have congratulated him on his maiden speech. I should have pointed out to him that he is one of five Members present and speaking in the debate whose ancestors sat in the last Scottish Parliament. They are: myself, the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. For my part, I would confine all these proposals to the waste-paper basket straight away, whether or not they cost £6.50. In my opinion the proper course is simply to re-prorogue the 1707 Parliament and offer to those whose direct descendants still exist a seat in that parliament. However, I accept that that course is not likely to be followed.
To put a serious point to the Minister, what is the hurry in relation to this legislation? Why has it to be rushed through in August 1997? Surely Scotland will not disappear. The Scots will still be here in November. Even if a canal were built from Carlisle to Newcastle, Scotland is most unlikely to float away. Those who legislate in a hurry repent at leisure. The repentance is likely to be on the subject of the United Kingdom.
Will the Minister say a little more about a Scottish parliament's relations with the common market? I believe that the United Kingdom will speak with a louder and more powerful voice than Scotland, Wales and England separately.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, passed a few comments on the influence of the Scots. She made a very good point about the number of Scots in the

235
Cabinet. As noble Lords will know, three of the great offices of state are held by Scots. The Secretary of State for Scotland is a Scot; the Defence Secretary is a Scot; and the Transport Minister is a Scot. So far as the Treasury is concerned, we are most unlikely to hear an English voice in the Treasury now, because two of the junior Ministers in the Treasury are also Scots. Surely this will represent the high tide of Scottish power in United Kingdom history for ever. Why the Scots, who have the real power now, should wish to throw it away for the illusion of power in a small, independent country, I am completely at a loss to know. No doubt the Minister will provide a brief answer to that point.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his "cake" argument. Perhaps the Minister will say a little more about how "less" can be "more" at the same time.
This time I support the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who is still not in his place, on the matter of the building of the new legislative chamber or whatever it is to be called. Noble Lords will share my view that Edinburgh is one of the most beautiful cities in the world; it is the Athens of the north. The thought that it might be desecrated by, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, suggested, some trendy, useless, slick building for the chamber horrifies one. I note that Cardiff has escaped that approach with its opera house, although it looks as though the Victoria and Albert Museum will be landed with it.
Finally, I wish to ask the Minister a small question of detail. The document headed "Price of Scotland's Freedom" lists the number of individuals who were alleged in 1707 not to have been poorer as a result of the Act of Union going through. Who should correspond to the gentleman who is described as, "the messenger that brought the treaty of union to London"? That gentlemen was paid £60. Perhaps a modern equivalent would be Alex Salmond, the Member in another place for Banff and Buchan, the man without whose actions this whole Pandora's Box would never have been opened.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I begin my contribution by saying a few words about the future role of the Lord Advocate, a subject touched upon already by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, and my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.
As the White Paper makes clear, over the past 250 years the Lord Advocate, as a Law Officer of the Crown, has played a significant role in the government of Scotland and thereby the government of the United Kingdom. In recent years the Lord Advocate's influence has extended far beyond his departmental responsibilities by virtue of the fact that he sits on various Cabinet committees and is privy to the vast volume of correspondence that goes around Whitehall every day. The Lord Advocate's role as independent public prosecutor and his role as constitutional and legal adviser on Scottish affairs to the United Kingdom Government are very important. He also plays a very
236
major role in the formation of policy and the planning and approval of legislation prior to its being brought before Parliament.
In addition, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, as Law Officers, play their part in providing Law Officers' opinion to the Government. One of the conventions of your Lordships' House and indeed of another place is that neither the existence nor the contents of Law Officers' opinion are made known. But the practice is that on most matters, unless they are peculiarly Scottish or English points of law, an opinion is prepared by at least one English Law Officer and one Scottish Law Officer. Such joint opinions are prepared on a very regular basis. Many deal with the compatibility of secondary and primary legislation with European Union treaty obligations and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Over the years, the Lord Advocate has represented the Crown, not only in the Scottish courts but before the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House and in the courts in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. On many occasions the Lord Advocate has represented the Government at international meetings and conferences the length and breadth of the world. Therefore, there is much force in what the Faculty of Advocates recently said in a memorandum it submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland; namely, that the Lord Advocate,
"is an effective guardian of the [Scottish] legal system. who provides an authoritative voice for Scotland and Scots law in London. Europe and beyond".
I regret to say that within the various branches of the Scottish legal profession there is growing concern that, if the devolution proposals proceed, the Government may have chosen the wrong option for the future role of the Lord Advocate. That concern is shared by those who support devolution, those who oppose it, and those who take a neutral stance, as I anticipate the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland will do when they come to respond in detail to the proposals set out in the White Paper.
Let me briefly indicate why I have some concern that the proposal set out in paragraph 4.8 of the White Paper may not be the right way forward. I fully accept that any Scottish executive would require the services of law officers to provide it with advice on legal matters and to represent its interests in the courts. One anticipates that, despite the consensus politics that have been talked about, there will be occasions when the Scottish executive requires to be represented in court in legal disputes with UK government departments and other public authorities, such as local authorities.
I accept the need for such legal advice and legal representation. But it is by no means obvious that the duties should be carried out by the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland. The White Paper suggests that that is appropriate because the Lord Advocate's responsibilities for the investigation and prosecution of crime are to be devolved. I find that a somewhat strange comment. The Lord Advocate has always been the public prosecutor in Scotland. He, his Crown Counsel and the procurators fiscal appointed by him have traditionally investigated criminal activity in Scotland, sudden deaths and the like. He alone has been

237
responsible for the prosecution of crime in Scotland. The situation is different from that which applies in England where other public bodies, such as Customs and Excise and the Health and Safety Executive, have a role to play. So I do not regard his duties as being devolved. I have always taken the view that they have been based in Scotland; he is a master of the investigative procedure and a master of the prosecution.
It is proposed that his independent department, the Crown Office, should come within the ambit of the Scottish Office; that it should cease to have a separate budget, as it has at the moment; and that it should be paid out of the funds which the Scottish Office receives from London or from any tax that may be raised. I have a concern that that might serve to challenge the very important independence of the Lord Advocate, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, spoke earlier.
In the same way that the Crown Prosecution Service in England comes within the ministerial responsibility of the Attorney-General, I believe that the prosecution of crime in Scotland should come within the auspices of an independent department under the ministerial responsibility of the Lord Advocate.
There is a danger of such interference. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, talked about an historical example of it. I regret to say that more recently in England I have detected some signs of the possible interference of the Home Office, in respect of the Crown Prosecution Service, in setting out the approach that the prosecution should take to issues of whether or not there is a sufficiency of evidence to proceed and whether there are sufficient prospects of conviction; and, in another example, whether it is the rule that prosecutors should give reasons to victims as to why a prosecution has been taken, has not been taken or has been departed from if one has begun. It is very important that the public prosecutor is entirely independent. I believe that that independence would be reinforced if his department were separate from any political department.
But it is not just the question of structural independence which is important. The Lord Advocate, his Crown Counsel and procurators fiscal prosecute in the public interest. The public interest is not just limited to devolved matters or to the residents of Scotland. It requires to take account of much wider considerations, not least because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser mentioned, matters such as the misuse of drugs, firearms, health and safety at work regulations and road traffic matters are not to be devolved. Therefore, many of the charges which will be prosecuted in Scotland will be for contraventions of legislation passed by this House and another place on previous occasions and to be passed on future occasions.
It is important that the Lord Advocate should remain a member of the United Kingdom Government so that he can play a full role in the formulation of the policy leading to such legislation and play a full part in the debates as a government Minister in the promotion of such legislation. No doubt arrangements can be made either through the Solicitor-General for Scotland or by some other means to ensure that he co-operates fully
238
with any parliament in Edinburgh and with any Scottish executive and, very importantly, with other agencies involved in the criminal justice system. The White Paper proposes that if the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General are not members of the Scottish parliament, they should have the right to take part in debates. That may be possible for a new parliamentary body; it certainly would not be possible for your Lordships' House and another place.
Mention has been made of a third man. That has been humorously referred to in Scotland since the White Paper was published. Whether it is a cricketing analogy of someone who stands on the boundary and occasionally answers a question he may be asked or whether it is a more shady character who frequents the darker aspects of the corridors of power I am not sure. What is quite clear is that to try to create a new officer to fulfil the role in Whitehall and Westminster, in your Lordships' House and in another place, that has been fulfilled by Lords Advocate over the years, would be an extremely difficult exercise.
I am concerned that unless that role is fulfilled then in an ironical way Scots law will suffer. People frequently say that one of the reasons for having an independent devolved parliament for Scotland is that Scotland has its separate legal system. One of the ironies of devolution may be that because so much of the law which will apply in Scotland will still be passed by this Parliament unless the Scottish legal voice is fully heard and understood, there is a danger of our legal system becoming more Anglicised than some criticise it for already.
I hope therefore that when the Minister replies he will undertake at least to discuss with his ministerial colleagues the possibility of giving further consideration to the future role of the Lord Advocate and undertake to consider the possibility of a public discussion with all branches of the legal profession—the Senators of the College of Justice, the sheriffs and others involved—to see whether any productive way forward is possible.
In conclusion, perhaps I can ask the Minister a few questions about the proposal to refer to the Judicial Committee disputes on the question of vires. While I fully understand what will happen if a dispute arises before legislation is passed, I am slightly unclear what will he the position if a dispute arises during the course of a court action, whether it be criminal or civil proceedings. If such a dispute arises in front of a Senator in the Court of Session or a sheriff in a sheriff court, is it proposed that there and then the matter should be referred to the Judicial Committee for decision or some form of ruling? Or is the proposed way forward that the judge should decide the issue and that there should be some right of appeal thereafter?
Another issue that arises is why the Judicial Committee should be limited to serving Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. Is there not a case for extending the committee to any Privy Counsellor who has held or who holds high judicial office in the United Kingdom? That provision would allow the noble and learned Lords, Lord Roger, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and others similarly qualified to sit in an appropriate case.

239
What would be the position if rights of appeal in civil cases to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House were abolished? Would there still be Scottish Lords of Appeal in Ordinary? Can there be any guarantee or is any guarantee offered that there will always be members of that committee who are qualified, trained and experienced in the practice of the law of Scotland? Those are troubling questions; they are serious questions. It may be that the answers cannot be given tonight but I hope that they will be given before the devolution referendum takes place.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, as a Scot who has travelled pretty widely, I come to this debate focusing on Scotland. I have to say that I was born and reared abroad. Singapore? Hong Kong? No; Staffordshire. Where was I schooled? Paris? Vienna? Berlin? No; Sussex and Oxford. I still say "abroad" and alas I have come through it all "without a Scots tongue in ma heid"; that I regret.
I wish to say what a pleasure it was to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill. I regret that she is no longer in her place. I have never heard her speak before and felt that she spoke with grace and dignity. Of course, we remember her late husband and the part he played in getting this idea off the ground. It was a great pleasure to listen to the gracious way in which the noble Baroness addressed the House. I wish I could agree with everything that she said; unfortunately, I cannot.
This all has to make sense in terms of a realistic comprehension of Britain's role both in history and again in the modern world, not least the fact that we poured out our blood and treasure when standing alone for the free world in World War II. Or, on the other hand, perhaps this is just the prelude to an escapist scuttle from the role and destiny of our people?
Andrew Neil, editor-in-chief of the Scotsman newspaper, wrote on 25th July,
"Why I, as a Scot, am sad today".
He focused on two points. First, a gross diminution of Scots influence at Westminster through cutting the number of Scots MPs, and the role of the Scottish Secretary of State "withering on the bough", as he put it—the withering, that is, of his influence in the Cabinet. Mr Neil cited paragraph 4.5 on page 13 of the White Paper with its claim that without their own parliament the Scots could no longer claim their current "over-representation" at Westminster but should be willing to accept a cut of about a dozen from the present number of 72 MPs. Such influence as we might be allowed to retain would be confined to defence, foreign affairs and UK economic policy. But we have to face gigantic contradictions which run right through the White Paper.
How can Scotland genuinely take part in management of the UK economy when fiscal power is to be split between the Whitehall Exchequer and the Scottish "Executive", with its power to alter levies north of the Border. How again could Scotland expect to provide
240
Britain's Prime Minister, Britain's Foreign Secretary and Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer? I am happy they are all Scots.
The White Paper and the Government's Statement on it are bestrewn with pledges about retaining the Union, keeping the United Kingdom together and so forth. But there is little examination of the UK itself. That was well summarised, if my memory is correct, by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in a recent letter to the Independent. I apologise to him in his absence for not warning him beforehand that I intended to quote him. I hope I get the quote right. He said, in effect, that the Union of the Crowns in 1603 had been a grouping of sovereign states with, and under, an accepted top figurehead or symbol—something analogous perhaps to the Commission's place in the current European Union of sovereign states.
Personally, I would rather, in the political world of today, find a new term for "the United Kingdom". To that end I appeal to the imagery of the Great Seal of the Realm which calls the Head of the Commonwealth "Prince (in Latin princeps) of the Gathering of the Peoples". Such a term—albeit in Latin—established in the Great Seal makes me prefer to describe the UK as "the gathering of the British peoples".
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, argued—I hope that I am not misquoting him—that the proper way to change it all would be by negotiating a really new and modern Treaty of Union. It is idle to deny, as the White Paper keeps trying to do, that there is nothing explicit or implicit to threaten the UK as such. But if a bitter quarrel about tax or levies on oil and gas revenues from the Continental Shelf did not set off an explosion of volcanic proportions, then white is black and black is white. Such is the kind of quarrel that is almost inevitable sooner or later between the Scottish Executive and the London Treasury.
Worse still, the small print includes provision for the UK auditor's office finally to decide which fiscal costs and figures are relevant to the calculation of the longstanding English subsidy to public expenditure per head in Scotland as against the much lower figure for the English. In that regard the White Paper scheme ties and binds the Scots with gilded cords whose decorative tassels have cunningly hidden the power of an iron stranglehold.
Another contradiction lies in the reservation to Westminster's Parliament—and hence to the UK as a whole—of the power of decision on foreign policy. This is stated just when the present arrangements mean that Scottish or Welsh soldiers serving in UK forces abroad are to be denied a vote in the referendums. Still another contradiction lies in the proposal that Scotland should have a representative office in Brussels with access to the Commission, almost within yards of the offices of the long-established UKREP—the official office representing Britain's interests in Brussels. Just when the European Union's top centralists are pressing for a unified defence strategy to replace the current ad hoc arrangements with NATO, the White Paper asserts that Scotland's input to UK foreign and defence policy should not be at the heart of Whitehall, where decisions must be made, but initially in the frontline itself—like

241
Scottish and Welsh troops now serving in the several British squadrons in Bosnia but denied a vote in the forthcoming referendums.
A politically more serious and more practical way to go about this whole proposition would surely have involved twin resorts: examining how the Treaty of Union could be renegotiated to suit today's conditions; and an equally serious response to the widespread public dream of a Scottish parliament, something with which I have long sympathised. This could and should have been done by examining what for years has been working so well, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA).
The convention meets in plenary session each year but has yet to find a permanent home. It is condemned to shuffle around from Glasgow to Edinburgh and then to Perth, Aberdeen, Dundee, Inverness and so on, like a travelling circus. It should long ago have been decently housed in the High School building opposite the Scottish Office in Edinburgh where at least it could have had regular annual sessions and all the publicity that would naturally attend a Scotland-wide assembly.
The remit of CoSLA excludes such extraneous matters as debates on NATO, foreign affairs and the UK economy, let alone any other areas such as defence, the Western European Union and the eastward expansion of NATO. These are all areas which the White Paper excludes from the Scottish parliament and which are already excluded from CoSLA's remit. Such issues—with the bogus litany of refrains about holding the Union together—have been dragged in as a sop to all who see in this White Paper project all the signs of the dynamic of revengeful and narrow nationalism burrowing away. It may at the moment be unpopular in Scotland. At any rate the SNP did not attract a great many votes in the last election. However, it is there, it is bitter and it would be idle to pretend that it does not have at least emotional links with those who some of us in other parts of Scotland refer to as the Glasgow Irish.
All this is much in the English mind just now. But as the first year of the new Labour administration unfolds—with the Wales referendum artlessly slotted in for just a little while after the anticipated Scottish "Yes"—much will become blurred and misunderstood once the public's imagination is caught up, for instance, in the election of London's new mayor—quite soon now, it seems. For this means a new focus of political pressure and expression being brought into being. The scale of the vote for London's mayor will be at least 5 million electors—more than all the Scots and Welsh electors put together.
I have one final point. Surely HM Stationery Office does not have to adorn the White Paper with a right mockery of the Scottish national flag, the Saltire. Here is one more irritating example of bureaucratic condescension. Enough is enough. The Saltire is a white St. Andrew's cross on a sky-blue background—not just a rather messy, big, brown smudge.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I rise to support, in general terms at least, the contents of the two White Papers. I shall confine my remarks to the White Paper proposing a Scottish parliament. It meets with my approval because I have long supported that principle. The present Government are to be commended for, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said on more than one occasion, proposals which in essence are fairly generous.
I seek to make a contribution to the debate because the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and I sat on the Front Bench 19 years ago repelling all boarders to the good ship "The Scotland Bill" of 1978. A considerable amount of ammunition came from the other side of the Chamber, but both of us could say, although the noble and learned Lord is not in his place at the moment, that we succeeded after about 16 Committee days in repelling a good deal of the gunfire, some of it emanating from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who I see has just resumed his seat.
The Bill outlined in the White Paper will be a better Bill than the Bill which we debated in the House some 20 years ago. The main reason why it will be a better Bill is that the reserve powers will be clearly delineated and the other powers, which in the meantime are under the aegis of the Scottish Office, will stand devolved. In one sense that will mean less time spent in debate in your Lordships' House. During the proceedings on the previous Bill we became bogged down in points of quite extraneous detail because of the need carefully to define each of the devolved functions. This time round I think the issues will be a little easier to understand and a little easier to debate. I think it is a better Bill for that reason.
I spent some years as a Minister of State in the Scottish Office. At that time there were some 10,500 civil servants in Edinburgh and 60 in Dover House. The six-man ministerial team was in Westminster for about four days a week. We used sometimes to get in touch with the civil servants in Scotland by means of a remote control chamber on the top of Dover House. That, in itself, in administrative terms was an unsatisfactory way in which to deal with major matters which required ministerial assent and ministerial decision. The devolving of powers from the Scottish Office to the parliament is greatly to be commended. It is also worth keeping in mind that at present Scotland, with a separate legal system, is probably the only country which does not have a legislature. That difference will be resolved as a result of the Bill.
I also believe that the instigation of proportional representation will go a long way to prevent criticism in areas outwith the central belt of Scotland about the over-domination of what, after all, are 4 million Scots living in that belt and a million Scots living elsewhere. The first-past-the-post system certainly weighs heavily on the west central belt as matters stand. I believe that the proportional representative system which is now being considered goes a long way to help what is a major problem in that regard.
I also believe that the previous Act gave the then Secretary of State for Scotland too much of a nanny power. He had to interfere at far too many points. He

243
had to be consulted on too frequent occasions. That in itself caused much upset north of the Border. That has been eliminated this time, and in my view that also goes a long way to making this a mature Bill created for mature people living in what I hope will be a mature democracy, as here.
The two points of criticism I make are these. Like the noble Lord, Lord Steel, I am unhappy at the idea of vast sums of money for a new parliament building. I believe that the existing parliament building is adequate and that the old Scottish Office can certainly house the staff which are needed. One does not need to build a tunnel because one can build a walkway overhead. There is one on the other side of Leith Walk anyway at the moment. In essence, I do not believe that there is a huge problem. I believe that the Government are being too triumphalist at that point.
The other point that causes me concern is that, as matters stand, one is moving towards a unicameral system of government north of the Border. There is not a revisory power. I worry a little about that. I would like to consider that point rather more. That having been said, my welcome is warm and I believe that the Government's proposals should be commended by all.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, Oscar Wilde accompanied an apprentice orator to his first speech. When the young man sat down after his address he looked at Wilde and asked, "Have I spoken for too long?". Wilde looked up and said, "No, it just sounded as if you did". I shall not disappoint noble Lords.
Should September's referendum results approve of a devolved parliament for Scotland and a devolved assembly for Wales—unless I misunderstood the Government's resolve in the White Paper relating to devolution—these two aforementioned states will be able to negotiate independently over their position and their feelings towards, for example, the common fisheries policy.
The leader of the Scottish National Party will demand, obviously, a major executive role in the proposed Scottish parliament. He has already stated that his party is committed to renegotiate the common fisheries policy in favour of Scottish fishermen. He will not forget, of course, that the 1989 United Nations Convention removed the 200-mile fishing limit around fish-abundant Rockall but failed to recognise that Rockall is within 200 miles of St. Kilda, the westernmost fishing port in Scotland.
Nor will the proposed Scottish parliament forget that it will have to finance the Scottish Fisheries Protection Squadron; boats formerly financed by Whitehall. Should Scotland "go independent" perhaps Her Majesty's Government will specifically designate Royal Navy ships to look after the fishing interests in the South West of England.
I say "of England", for surely the independent status of the Welsh would encourage them to claim their right to protect their fishermen. Should this be so, should power be so devolved, and should Scotland and Wales argue successfully for their independent status within
244
the European Union, the Government would be at risk of trade discrimination against fishermen just across the Bristol Channel—the fishermen of the South West of England and the men and women of Devon and Cornwall. I am sure that they would like to take their case to the European Court at Luxembourg.
Although today's publicity in the media concerning the Welsh assembly may cause a rethink, leading to more and greater powers being given, what would stop a future Welsh assembly from permitting the internationally-recognised sport of competition pistol shooting being carried out in Wales? What could be better for the Welsh economy, the Welsh tourist industry and the Welsh employment problem? The people in the South West of England will be watching this devolution game with interest—and the elected Members in the other place should remember that Bristol is not the South West; the South West may start there, but it goes all the way to the Scilly Isles.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the White Paper seems to assume that agreement will be reached between the Scots and the British Parliament and the Secretary of State on all matters. It is news to me that even members of the Labour Party can always agree. It is even less likely that a future Conservative Government will always be able to find a middle ground with the Scots. When that clash comes, the Scots will undoubtedly say that as elected members they have the right to override Westminster and, failing that, will want independence.
Disagreement could come on a number of matters, most likely unforeseeable at present. The single currency could be the spark that breaks Scotland and England. It could be defence and the stationing of nuclear vessels or the rules on abortion. The friction with Wales will come when they find themselves powerless to stop legislation passed by the next Tory Government and they discover that they are no more than a talking shop. The North Welsh, from where my family comes, anyhow believe that Cardiff will be as remote from them as London.
Where the assemblies disagree with the reforms at Westminster they will be able to drag their feet, while blaming Westminster for the failures from the lack of those reforms. The new assemblies will inevitably trespass on matters that the local councils see as their patch. Just as the district councils resented the counties and took their powers, so will the district councils sooner or later demand the powers given to the assembly to be devolved to them.
One obvious bone of contention will be the oil. Scotland will very soon be demanding a greater share of the oil revenues from its seas and that must lead to friction. In 1979 to 1995 Scotland had a £27 billion surplus over the United Kingdom, largely owing to oil. How long before they claim that for themselves? But is Scotland in surplus or deficit in the United Kingdom? That seems a matter of how statistics are interpreted.
The Government and Revenue in Scotland document by the Treasury suggests that in 1994–95 England subsidised Scottish residents by £23 billion. That is per

245
capita 10.5 per cent. of UK revenue, compared with 8 per cent. of the population. But whatever the figures, they can be proved to go either way; for sure the Scots will use the statistics to prove that they are the losers.
But when the Scots have their independence, and if those figures are right, why should England continue to subsidise them with their 25 per cent. per capita advantage over the English? Should not the piper play some of the tune? What is odd is that while the European Union is attempting to federate Europe and bring down all barriers and nationality, the United Kingdom is breaking itself up into more national states. Perhaps in 100 years or so from now we shall become another Yugoslavia.
If an independent Scotland is to be a success, it is vital that the assembly should somehow be able to attract highly qualified and experienced members rather than a morass of political councillors with little value other than the colour of their politics, as too often happens in local government.
Too often, authorities spend too long pontificating on matters over which they have little control or responsibility and the busiest and most competent of their members are sickened, until all that are left to run the authority are those who are unemployed, often unemployable and of no proven ability. In time, the most able refuse even to get involved in local government at all. It would be a shame for Scotland if the most able were to be driven out by the least able. I sincerely hope that the rules of the assembly will be designed to attract and keep as Members the most able people of Scotland.
The assumption that elected representatives are always the best is sad. Over and over again, it is the quangos and appointed bodies, made up of people of the greatest proven calibre, which have achieved the most. A good example is the Teesside Development Corporation and the Welsh Development Agency. They have been able to achieve enormous results with the funds awarded. Had those funds gone to an elected council, many councillors admit that they would still be arguing over how they should be spent.
It is like your Lordships' House, which some commentators say far surpasses the other place in the quality of debate—and so it should, with the wealth of talent of which it is composed, but it would never be so if the House were to be elected.
What of the future? It will not be long before Scotland answers directly to Brussels alongside England, and the UK would be broken up. How long before Scotland and Wales demand their own embassies?
Paradoxically, while the Scots want independence, they have no qualms about not only disregarding what the English may think, but of ruling us with an almost unacceptably high proportion of Scots in our present Government. Until now it has not mattered, but it will be quite unacceptable for the Scots to rule both their country and ours. English people have no interest in forcing their opinions over Scotland, but likewise they do not expect Scotland to force its opinions onto England, as the Scots will be able to do.
246
In a MORI poll 68 per cent. of the English said that they saw no reason why Scotland should not have its own assembly, but that is very different from saying that they would want the Scots to control England. It is totally unacceptable that Scottish Members of Parliament in London, even if their numbers are reduced, should have any say in English affairs on those matters which in Scotland are devolved to their assembly. At the very least, there should be a convention that Scottish Members do not vote on any of those same matters affecting England. To put it another way, if Scotland demands independence, so should England. If, and as soon as, Scotland decides on independence, there should be a referendum in England to decide ours.
Robin Cook has said that devolution is the battering ram with which he will knock down the centralist state. Do we really want different systems of government in every different part of the country? If so, and if Scotland and Wales have home rule, are other parts of the country to have the same? I have no doubt that the ideas on education, for example, that are held by Members from West Yorkshire will vary from those held by Members in the south of England. Are both to have what they want? After all, it is said that if the Home Counties opted out of the UK, like Scotland, they would form the 11th most powerful economic country on the planet. If not for the Home Counties, there should at least be a voice for England.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, like the Minister I spent my boyhood in North Wales, but I have worked in industry in Scotland for over 40 years and although certainly past my sell-by date, I still do. Therefore, I should like to confine my remarks purely to the effects on Scottish industry and business which I see arising from the proposals for tax-raising powers.
I believe that the position of Scottish industry is very much more favourable than has been the case for a long time. In a rather old-fashioned way, I believe that that is due to a number of factors. I refer first to the sensible partnership between government, local authorities, the private sector and the quangos. I refer secondly to the fact that responsibility for industry was devolved to the Scottish Office a long time ago.
I am a little nervous about my credentials on either these Benches or the Benches opposite, because the first quango on which I served was the Scottish Investment Advisory Board. I say that because I was appointed by the late Eric Heffer and at a time when Tony Wedgwood Benn was President of the Board of Trade—and I do not think that either of them could quite be classified as "New Labour". However, I was extremely proud to be the last chairman of the Scottish Development Agency and to be the first chairman of Scottish Enterprise. I was very proud also of the successful transition between those organisations.
From that background, I should like to concentrate on only two paragraphs of the Scottish White Paper. Paragraph 7.12 states quite explicitly why the

247
Government rejected the idea of a different corporation tax: because it would be an unreasonable burden on Scottish industry.
A number of noble Lords on this side of the House have expressed their concern about paragraph 7.26 and about the effects of a possible change to the non-domestic rates. I should like to explain what I think may happen and what I suspect will be the views of Scottish business when it is consulted. The first burden is perhaps not an enormous one. I refer to the £50 million which is to be imposed by the establishment of a new PAYE system for income tax purposes, and to the ongoing cost of £15 million. Perhaps Scottish businesses could absorb that, but if an additional 3p. income tax rate were to be imposed (amounting to, let us say, £450 million), it does not require much imagination to see who would bear that cost. It would not be those people who are taxed; it would be their employers—and the reason is extremely simple. Can you see a trade union negotiating national rates either side of the Border and accepting that people one side of the Border are very much worse off net than people on the other side of the Border? Can you see a small business in Carlisle and Dumfries ensuring that its employees are taxed, if they are on average earnings, some £6 per week differently or, for middle managers, perhaps £1,000 per year differently? What of the problems for companies which want to move people around between Scotland and England, as we all do? They will have to say, "I am very sorry, but you will have to go to Scotland because that is where your job will be but you will be £1,000 worse off'. I see great problems and I suspect that most of that £450 million will fall as a non-competitive additional cost on Scottish business.
Another spectre lurks in paragraph 7.26 and I earnestly urge the Government to think it through and to consider where the responsibility lies. My noble friends Lord Weir and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish have already touched on this, as have other noble Lords. Perhaps I may remind the House of what happened before we had the uniform business rate. I should like to quote four examples to which I have referred previously in this House in a debate on the economy. They are very simple. I refer first to the element of rates if you lay your head on a pillow in a four-star hotel in Edinburgh. Before the introduction of the uniform business rate, you paid £3.50 in rates on your hotel bill for the privilege of doing so. At a similar hotel in London, the rateable element was £1.
If you brewed a barrel of beer—I was partly responsible for so doing in Fountainbridge—the rateable value for that barrel of beer was eight times what it cost to brew a barrel of beer in Burton-on-Trent from a brewer who shall be nameless.
Let us compare the costs of Jenners department store in Edinburgh with those of a department store which is fairly frequently in the news nowadays, Harrods. If Jenners rates were £1 million, that would represent 4 per cent. of its total cost base, yet it is one-eighth the size of Harrods which paid the same rates. There is a big complex at Grangemouth comprising BP and ICI. Before rating was revised it represented 40 per cent. of the total rateable value of the old central region.
248
I remind my noble friend Lord Renton that in those days we did have regions. One last example which has already been quoted is the effect on big oil companies.
I believe that the aspirations and the appetite for public expenditure, and the demonstration that the Scottish parliament is working and local authorities are given the opportunity to do the things that they want, will prove almost unanswerable if the parliament has the power to impose additional tax through non-domestic rates. I plead with and urge the Government to think again when they have these conversations and not to abandon the uniform business rate, just as they have said that that would be an unreasonable burden on industry for the same reason as corporation tax.
That is the only point that I wish to make, except to say that I slightly regret I am no longer chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body and therefore do not have the opportunity to fix the rate for MSPs.
7.41 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, thirteen and a half months after he took up his new job as Secretary for Scotland the Earl of Mar wrote to Queen Anne on 14th June 1708 thus:
"I think myself obleidged in duety to lett you Majestie know that so farr as I understand, the inclinations and temper of the generality of this country is still as dissatisfied with the Union as ever, and mightily sowr'd".
Today we are at last addressing that dissatisfaction. This morning I read a brief analysis of the White Paper for a Scottish parliament in an article in The Times by Simon Jenkins. The article focused on a directly elected mayor for London. I should like to take each of his seven sentences and make comments about the issues raised in each. Mr. Jenkins begins:
"Scotland is to have restored to it a domestic autonomy that honours the concept of a consenting 'union', in place of crude colonial rule from London".
I like his use of the word "restored" for it reflects accurately Scotland's sovereign heritage. "Domestic autonomy" accurately describes the semi self-government that is longed for and is in line with the Scottish negotiating position in April 1706. A "consenting Union" is what it should have been for the past 290 years rather than the pretence of Scotland being a unitary state. "Colonial rule" is what happens at present, even under a Labour government. The opportunity for measures to be imposed in Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish representatives is symptomatic of this. Home rule or domestic autonomy will resolve the cruder issues of colonial rule. At the same time, I persist in the belief that a union with England is worth pursuing, and that is an incentive to get the relationship to work on more equal terms. The imposition of an incorporating union into the treaty negotiations in 1706 was overbearing and also incompetent. The retention of pre-Union institutions and the subsequent creation of new Scottish institutions has to be the evidence.
Mr. Jenkins goes on to say:
"The Scottish assembly will enjoy what is termed 'general competence'".

249
Of course, the use of the word "assembly" is wrong for the proposal constitutes a parliament, especially if it has the power of supply. The Scottish parliament will take control of most aspects of Scottish domestic life. It is a pity that moral issues such as abortion have been reserved to Westminster. That was not the case between 1967 and 1990. Only from 1990 was there a single United Kingdom Act.
Mr. Jenkins goes on:
"Statutes will set out not the powers of the Scottish assembly, but those remaining with the London Parliament".
The White Paper rightly takes the approach of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and sets out to identify the powers reserved to Westminster. Although that approach to the reservation of powers is sound, there are bound to be overlaps. I am glad to read that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will be tasked with the resolution of any disputes between the Scottish parliament and the British Parliament.
Next, Mr. Jenkins says:
"Scottish voters will be treated as mature".
At last the Scottish electorate will be entrusted with much of their future governance. This is the mark of a sovereign people. Historians will record that for a brief period of 290 years since the ice melted 10,000 years ago, the people of Scotland were deprived of their domestic sovereignty. The actions of the Scottish commissioners in 1706 earned them a sour rebuke by the patriot Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun. When the Union with England Act was touched with the Sceptre on 25th March 1707 Fletcher insisted on leaving Scotland, remarking bitterly:
"It is only fit for the slaves who sold it".
I go back to the words of Mr. Jenkins:
"A country the size of Denmark or New Zealand will be free to tax itself'.
Clearly, that depends on the outcome of the second question. The White Paper allows the Scottish parliament to decrease or increase the budget by up to £450 million. An increase has straightforward consequences. The Treasury will increase the Scottish block grant by the appropriate amount, less the administrative costs of collection. However, a decrease has more complicated consequences. The UK Treasury will pay over the Scottish block grant, less the appropriate amount and less the administrative cost, but the full benefit of the tax reduction will not go to the people of Scotland. There will be a reduction in taxation but, should the tax take go up as forecast by the more right-wing think tanks, the UK Treasury will benefit rather than the Scottish parliament.
Next, Mr. Jenkins says:
"There will be a price: fewer Scots MPs and the likely attrition of English subsidies".
I have no problem with a reduction in the number of Scots MPs at Westminster so long as that is aimed at equalising the representation ratio to that of England. Scotland has every right to a full say over the powers to be reserved to the British Parliament. The West Lothian question will pale into insignificance when English
250
devolution is introduced. However, to start with I accept that it will be a symptom of asymmetric devolution. As to the issue of which way the subsidies flow, I believe that the jury is still out. Only with a federal solution will one have conclusive proof.
Finally, Mr. Jenkins says:
"But that is for the Scots to choose, a choice the Tories denied them".
I believe that the Scottish electorate is more than ready for this advance towards its destiny. While musing on past resistance to Scottish home rule by various political parties, I conclude that the real issue is one of electoral advantage: for Labour, perhaps a substantial block of votes to help with its past problems in England; for the Conservatives, the existing set-up has allowed them to rule Scotland without a real mandate.
Following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, I also take this opportunity to announce my potential candidacy for the Scottish parliament.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, that may depress others. I thank my noble friends for their support. I am pleased with the White Paper and Mr. Jenkins's analysis. I commend it to the people of Scotland.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Gray: My Lords, the historical references introduced by the noble Earl are always interesting. I shall not, however, follow his arguments. I have never been a politician. I sit here, but I am not sure whether the Conservative Whips look upon me as a cross to bear or a mixed blessing. I choose to preface my remarks in that way to make it clear that my opposition to the Scottish White Paper proposals is the product of debate between my heart and my mind.
Like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, I have cantered around the devolution course in this House before. The three of us are probably the only people who spoke on a similar occasion who are speaking tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was kind enough to come and say to me, "I am sorry that I didn't notice that you were sitting there, or I should have mentioned you". It is probably just as well that he did not, because I might have reminded him that on more than one occasion we induced him to shoot himself in the foot.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, on many occasions!
Lord Gray: My Lords, I oppose devolution. I opposed devolution then. That does not mean that I have approached the present scheme with a closed mind. That would be foolish. The few minutes for which I can reasonably detain the House at this hour dictate that I select from the many items which demand scrutiny and which have been referred to during the course of the debate. I choose to fasten on finance. At the end of

251
the day, money (revenue and expenditure) is the core issue and the motor which will keep the wheels of the Scottish parliament turning.
Like my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the wording of the second referendum question troubles me. As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who is not in his place at the moment—
Lord Sewel: My Lords, yes he is.
Lord Gray: My Lords, the noble Lord said yesterday that the Government intend to overturn my noble friend's amendments which inserted the word "income" into the second referendum question. I make no apology for returning to the subject nor for reinforcing what has been said about it in this debate. Since it was an open secret that the Government proposed only an income tax-varying power, it was initially puzzling that they opposed the suggestion that the second referendum question should include the word "income". Was it obdurately obstinate resistance for resistance's sake on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, or was it something else?
I detect a more likely motive. If one sets the alternative wordings side by side, one recognises immediately that the version which omits the word "income" opens the door to other tax-varying powers. If such are introduced later, and Scots protest, the retort will be, "You voted for them". I cannot quote exactly the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, but the gist of what he said was that if the Scots were foolish enough to elect people who would impose extra tax on them it would be their own fault. It is not just a question of extra tax that we are talking about, it is the variation of tax, where the burden will fall, what effect there will be on the block grant, and what implications there will be for economic management.
In addition, we have to contemplate what is set out in paragraph 5 of Chapter 6 of the White Paper, which deals with local government. It clearly opens the door to tax variation by proxy and perhaps to the creation of new taxes. I do not need to spell them out. Noble Lords will have got my point.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell drew our attention to paragraphs 7.22 and 7.28. I think I have said all that is necessary on that subject. There are others which worry me, but I shall have to neglect them tonight.
I should like to ask one question which concerns the proposed scheme for proportional representation. In view of the number of additional members, to which the attention of the House was drawn earlier, what will happen if there is a significant number of independents? How on earth do such disparate characters achieve a list? What will happen?
I have properly used up as much time as I should. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, missed me off his list of Peers in the last Scots parliament, but it may interest the House to know that whether or not one of my forebears sat at that moment, two were qualified to do so—a father-in-law and a son-in-law. That was an unusual situation. Perhaps that is why they stayed away.
252
It might behove us to remember that we are not talking about the creation of a parliament, we are talking about the creation of a government. A very worrying aspect must be the potential for quarrelling, for mischief and for divisiveness between a government in Westminster and a government in Edinburgh. If one looks at the whole scene, at the triangle of local government, the Edinburgh government and the Westminster government into which one then chucks the European element, that is a worrying scenario. I am sad that England does not yet seem to have woken up to what these proposals portend. There are representatives in Parliament who should speak up for them and their interests. That is all I think that I can reasonably say tonight.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, on his excellent maiden speech. It may explain why your Lordships' House has a continual place in the affections of the nation. One member of his family was executed for being a little too pally with Charles II after the Battle of Dunbar and was forced to be executed by the Covenanters. An even closer relation tended to support Ian Smith. Therefore, one cannot exactly say that the Montrose family has been the loyalest of subjects to the Crown during all those years. However, it would be impossible not to welcome such a good speaker.
Cromwell imposed the first union of England with Scotland. That union prospered. In 1660 it was abolished with the Restoration. In 1686 the Scots wanted a union but the English would not have it. In 1689 William III managed to reach agreement with the Covenanters and banished the prospect of the episcopalianism of Bishops in Scotland and therefore the Church problem went away. Again, a few years later, the Scots wanted a union with England. But they did not get it because the English said they were too poor. The reason they asked for it was that the Scottish Parliament refused to vote supply to William III saying that he was not doing what it wanted him to do. William III said, "I couldn't care a fig about the Scottish Parliament because it gets lots of money from the English Parliament". Therefore, he paid no attention to the Scottish Parliament.
Finally, in 1707 the Act of Union was passed, a magic Act of Union. It produced a grandeur in Scotland. It made two and two make five. There was the Edinburgh Enlightenment, Hume, Locke, Adam Smith, Carlisle and even Macaulay. We know how Macaulay was such fun, because when he was aged five his aunt said to him, "Young Thomas Babington, how is your toothache?", to which he said, "Madam, the agony is somewhat abated." Why someone did not kick his little bottom after that, I do not know! However, as I am sure your Lordships know, he went on to create the Indian penal code which has stayed with us to this day.
Those people from Scotland were great intellects and they thrived in the Union. The pathetic thing about the people who are proposing devolution today is that they

253
are inward looking and are complaining, "We Scots do this and we Scots do that." There does not seem to be a grandeur of vision which previously existed in Scotland.
There is reason to complain about the overcentralisation of British government. That is true without any shadow of a doubt. Before the abolition of the business rate—and here I totally disagree with my noble friend Lord Nickson—the local authorities produced between 50 per cent. and 65 per cent. of their own revenue. In Scotland it is less than that. The local authorities are rigidly controlled in everything they do and in any money they can raise. On top of that, they are capped. Of course, local people feel aggrieved about that. I do not deny that the blame is to be laid solely at the door of Conservative governments. The previous Conservative government were the most centralising government there has been. I submit that that caused the argument and plea for devolution.
If one is going to devolve one should do it properly and allow the Scots to raise any tax they like. Then they will say, "Yes, we are responsible for corporation tax, local business rates and the rates of VAT. That is up to us." One then reduces the block grant to a minimum in order to cover defence and foreign affairs and there can be no friction between England and Scotland.
Let us consider the fact that England represents 85 per cent. of the Union. As regards the 3p variation either side of the income tax norm, let us assume that a Scottish parliament wants to put up the rate of income tax by 3p. It will say that it is doing so because of those mean so-and-sos at Westminster. It will say, "They will not give us enough of our Scottish money and we need to spend more." That is in spite of the fact that spending on the Scottish National Health Service is 12.5 per cent. higher per head than it is in England. A complaint will follow as night follows day.
In the light of the extra 12.5 per cent. that is spent on the Scottish National Health Service, let us assume that the Scots say, "Right, we are going to reduce income tax by 3p in the pound." In that event the English will get cross and say, "Why should we go on paying more money to the Scots who then can live off us even more?" If that is not a recipe for a disaster I do not know what is. The devolution is half baked. Either you do it properly and give everything away or you go down to local authority level and keep the Union. The Union has made two and two make five, and that is what has been so magic about it.
The idea that in a devolved Scotland the English will accept a Member of Parliament for Edinburgh saying, "No, you can't have a Salisbury bypass", while he can say nothing about what happens on the A.9 between Lockerbie and the Border is crazy. The English will get cross and that will ruin the Union.
Do we really believe that the English or the Union will accept seven out of 21 Cabinet Ministers from Scottish constituencies? Do we believe that the English will accept in our Cabinet Scottish Members of Parliament when England represents 85 per cent. of the Union? Of course they will not. This is the one way to
254
ensure that the Scots will not have Ramsay MacDonald or Alec Home and the Welsh will not have Lloyd George.
I accept that Sir Robert Peel sat for Trim when he was Home Secretary. That was only because it was in the Protestant interest. The moment Irish Members of Parliament failed to be part of the British Parliament and acted only as an Irish lobby they were marginalised with all the terrible consequences that occurred. As night follows day, that is what will happen to a devolved Parliament. It happened to the Ulster Parliament; Stormont.
Finally, I have checked with someone cleverer than I that devolution of criminal justice to Scotland will allow the Scots to re-impose the death penalty. However, because of the politically correct feminist lobby, they will not be allowed to touch abortion. I find that sad if not amusing.
The present administration are in the process of turning this country's constitution upside down. It is producing one form of government for Scotland, one form of government for Wales and one form of government for Northern Ireland. All will be different. Suddenly, England will be piled higgledy-piggledy in the middle. Then, for fun, the Government will have an elected mayor of London who will be different from the Lord Mayor of Chester, or wherever. That cannot be a sensible approach to constitutional affairs.
The Government also say, "We do not like the idea of quangos in Wales or Scotland. However, we love the idea of Members of these Benches sitting on quangos. We want to appoint everybody here". If that is not a quango, I do not know what a quango is.
The Government are in danger of turning the United Kingdom into a hotch-potch of a Holy Roman Empire, without the assistance of Richelieu, Joseph II and the Papacy, all of whom made Germany ungovernable. They are doing it for themselves without any outside help whatever.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I have always been agnostic on the subject of devolution. I campaigned against it on the last occasion and I have never felt that it was the first priority of a Labour Government in their first year of office to effect this legislation because it affects only 10 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom and a whole host of important legislative measures are being held up until we get this through.
But having said that, I must admire the commitment of the Prime Minister and the present administration, who promised that there would be Scottish and Welsh devolution Bills in the first year of office. If there is one thing that this Government have done, they have fulfilled their promises. That is refreshing in British politics.
The White Paper addresses a problem which is really an international problem. Someone said in the Economist this week that the nation state has become too small for big problems and too big for small problems. That is the issue at which we are looking.

255
We have a highly centralised nation state. Now we must adjust the constitution to make sure that there is a greater decentralisation and a more effective democracy.
The White Paper addresses that problem. As regards the House of Lords, I have always been impressed by the persuasive speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. But he has really lost the battle. We shall have a referendum and the "Yes" vote will carry. Anyone who knows Scottish politics will accept that. The Labour Party, the Lib Dems and the Scottish Nationalists all support the "Yes" vote. I attended the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland this year and the Church and Nation Committee recommended to the assembly without dissent that there should be a "Yes, yes" vote. I do not know what is the theological justification for that decision but, nevertheless, it expresses a Scottish view. I notice that the Scottish convention, of which my noble friend Lady Ramsay is vice-chairman and which worked hard on this subject, is presided over by an Anglican priest. Therefore, we have the Church of Scotland, an Anglican priest, the Lib Dems and the Scot Nats all in favour of a "Yes" vote, and that is what will happen.
It is the duty of the House of Lords to make sure that that constitutional revolution gives birth to a good, effective and sensible parliament. In the spirit which has been expressed from the Front Bench of consensus politics, I hope that my noble friend Lord Sewel and his colleagues will accept a good deal of the criticism and advice which have been offered in the course of today's debate.
The West Lothian question has not been solved. The mere fact that the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, are both to stand for the Scottish parliament is a good sign. I congratulate them both. But it is totally indefensible on the part of Scottish MPs to assume that they can carry on with 72 MPs. There may be a possible reduction (without commitment) to 57. But that will not take effect immediately and not before the next election. It will be subject to review by the Boundary Commission. It is the job of politicians to make political decisions; it is the job of the Boundary Commission to draw maps. Therefore, there should be a firm commitment on the part of Scottish MPs that they accept the logic of reducing the number of MPs in the House of Commons.
There has been a good debate on tax-raising powers. That must be clarified. Like the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, I have fought hard in this House and elsewhere for the equalisation of Scottish business rating because we have always been at a disadvantage in the rating system. Therefore, we must see to it that the tax-raising powers which are now to be given to the new Parliament will not in any way impede Scottish industrial development and investment.
There are one or two other issues which must be faced. In the enthusiasm of my friends who support devolution and in the excitement and emotion of this great change, I should warn them not to claim too much for a Scottish parliament. If one looks at the spending departments, as regards the spending department for
256
health I notice that Sam Galbraith, the Scottish Health Minister, said the other day:
"A Scottish parliament would be a gateway to a healthier future".
In one of the documents of the convention it said that we could have the greatest health service in Europe. Health service expansion and efficiency depend not only on good organisation but on money. I notice that the secretary of UNISON in Scotland welcomed that statement on the part of Sam Galbraith.
Those issues must be faced. Those in favour of a Scottish parliament should not claim too much. The Transport Secretary said the other day:
"The totality of the Scottish executive's powers will enable them to implement a fully integrated transport strategy".
Again, that is a high spending department. Again the relationship between the present contractors and railways must be defined by the new Scottish assembly. A Scottish integrated transport system cannot be invented without an acceptance of the existing commitments and the role of the regulator.
As regards education, assuming that the Dearing proposals affecting university education are approved before the implementation of the Scottish parliament, will the Minister tell us just what are the implications for the Scottish parliament of the Dearing Committee and the expenditure involved in higher education'? Will the Scottish assembly be able to withdraw from Dearing or will it have to implement the proposals?
Those are important issues which must be faced in the areas of transport and health. I should like to comment on the fact that for some reason or other abortion is not to be devolved. I should have thought that abortion was part of the provision of a general health service. But apparently it is not to be. I wonder what will be the powers of the parliament in relation to euthanasia, now that we have solved the problem of abortion.
Those problems must be faced. Do not let us expect too much from this highly dramatic change. It is an important change about which there are divided views. One side believes that it is the end of the United Kingdom and the other side believes that it will strengthen it. I hope that the latter is true and that there will be a basis of consensus politics and not confrontational politics in the new assembly. I wish it well.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, this is probably the first time since I joined the House that my speech will have been so eagerly anticipated, as I am last speaker on the list before the concluding speeches.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said in this debate that we cannot stand still. I said that last night. In the constitutional reforms that we are making at present, there is no possibility of standing still. We have to go somewhere: we must move on, the reason being that, to a very great degree, the Scots people have felt for the past 18 years that they have been returning a Labour government, while Britain as a whole has been returning a Conservative one. As a true Scot, I have been delighted to see a Conservative government returned,

257
the Scots people have not. That is the basic difference between the devolution of 1978–79 and devolution today and the likely outcome of the referendum vote. The Scottish people really want a change; they want more involvement in their own affairs.
However, the White Paper is frightening. It is not frightening in what it tells us, because it is very well written and easy to understand, but it is frightening in what it does not say. It mentions that Scottish representation in Westminster will be reviewed. By whom, by how much and when? It does not say. That is left to the imagination of someone else later on. It says that a suitable site for the parliament will be found. Again, by whom and when? Perhaps I may suggest that far more beneficial than the lovely millennium dome that we are to have in London would be a millennium parliament in Edinburgh. That would be a very good project for the millennium, and the present Government could feel that they had made an enormous contribution to the whole of Britain.
There is to be no upper house, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. It is very dangerous to allow any parliament to come into existence and not have a brake on its powers; indeed, that is something that should always be considered most carefully.
Moreover, we are told that it will be up to the House of Commons to consider its future arrangements for Scottish business. Again, we have another situation where something might or might not happen. We do not know. We are being asked to vote in a referendum and we do not know exactly what the House of Commons will say because it has not been spelt out for us.
We are told that it will cost £5 a head to run, plus £5 to set up a parliament building. Only £5 per head to fund 200 staff—129 Members of the Scottish parliament and the running of a parliament building? I do not think so. I believe that it will end up costing a good deal more. That is why the question of the tax-varying power becomes so important.
A very interesting point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about the two categories of Member of Parliament in the Scottish parliament—the one who has his constituency to look after and the one who has nothing to look after but his own self-interest, or that of his party because he will have been elected by proportional representation. Can we really pay those people the same rate? Moreover, will we get the same calibre of person for both positions? It is an interesting conundrum about which I had not even thought until today's debate started.
We are also to create a "First Minister". What a ghastly title! It is a terrible name. Surely we could come up with something a little better. Indeed, it stinks somehow of a banana republic. It really is a dreadful idea. We are also to ruin completely the eminent position of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has a very good place in the Cabinet. It strikes me that he will become a political eunuch, which is not a very good situation to be in. We are told that he will be in a position where he can promote communications
258
between the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive and between the UK Parliament and government. He will also be likely to meet with the Scottish executive. However, he cannot meet the Scottish parliament to discuss Scottish matters. He will be in a very difficult situation.
So much has already been said on the tax-raising powers that I shall make just one comment and leave the matter there. On the one hand, the White Paper says that it is inappropriate to vary taxes other than income tax as this would place an unreasonable burden on companies operating in Scotland. It also says that tax will be collected by the Inland Revenue, with PAYE costing employers £10 to £20 per employee for a small firm or £5 for a large firm. Again, businesses in Scotland will be used as unpaid tax collectors, as is already the case with VAT. However, they will now have to collect not only the new PAYE they will also have to pay for the privilege of establishing the new system.
The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, very succinctly suggested that perhaps it would not actually be collected through PAYE because—and I believe that he made a good point here—the unions and the employees will not settle for being paid 1p, 2p, or 3p less than their counterparts in England, in Ireland or in Wales. He is absolutely right; they will not. So who will end up paying for it? Of course, it will be the good old employer again. If we want to encourage employment in this country, as I am sure the Government do, is that the right way to go about it? They should seriously consider the matter.
Under the federal system, which I have promoted again and again in this House until I have almost become a bore on the subject, that would not happen; indeed, we would all have the same system. Everyone would be paying the same tax rate and everyone would be receiving the same. However, that is not so. We are getting this hotch-potch where Ireland has its little parliament, Scotland will have its parliament with tax-raising powers, which Ireland does not have, and Wales will just have an assembly. I dare, rather rudely, to call the latter a talking shop; indeed, Wales will have nothing else, while England will have nothing at all except for the mother Parliament in London. The situation can only lead to problems.
I am delighted that at long last the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has finally realised that this is a liberal policy. Indeed, one member of the Liberal Party on those Benches has finally said, "federalism". I cannot understand why they have been so quiet about this. Is it because they are desperate to get to those other Benches, or what? There is something peculiar about the fact that they have kept so quiet on the subject. The federal system is the only way forward.
I am so frightened about the situation. The constitutional changes that we propose to make are so enormous that, if we are not very careful, we could end up with the complete breakup of the UK. I do not want that to happen; neither do the Government. However, it could happen because we cannot go back. Indeed, once

259
we have given these powers to Scotland, we cannot say, "Whoops, terribly sorry, we made a mistake. We want to go on to something different". That just would not work.
Under this proposal the Scottish people and Scottish businesses will pay more than the rest of the country. Why is Scotland to have a parliament with tax-raising powers and Wales only an assembly? What is the difference? In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, told us that it was because of the diversity of cultural beliefs—hence two different assemblies. I very much respect the Minister but I am sorry to say that that is an absolute load of cobblers. Of course we have different ideas, but there is no reason why one should have a talking shop and the other a parliament with tax-raising powers. We are human beings all together. We are all members and, indeed, proud to be members of the British nation. Why are we putting Scottish people and Scottish businesses at such an unfair advantage? I do not understand it.
Finally, I turn to the relationship between the Scottish parliament and local councils. I believe that that could become very fraught as the parliament tries to cap excessive spending. We know that that has happened in the past in that far distant place—London—where such spending has tended to occur. However, the new parliamentarians will be in a very different position because if they increase taxes to pay for the extravagances of local authorities, the full electorate, especially in areas where the local authorities behave with due decorum, will be rather upset. On the other hand, if they do not raise taxes and they cap councils to stop such wanton extravagances, they will also get into trouble. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser introduced an interesting point regarding the reserve functions and mentioned especially insolvency. Of course, Scots law is very different in that respect. It seems to be peculiar that that power is reserved.
I have two further points to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, spoke at length about how keen she was on the Scottish parliament because of the women's rights that it will give. I say may the best person, of whatever sex, win. Why have we suddenly decided in this life that we must have equality for women, equality for colour and equality for religion to such an extent? Of course there must not be bias against anyone, but surely we should work towards establishing a free country where people can do what they want. I say may the best person win. All we are doing at the moment with this emphasis on equality is creating inequality because now the position has gone too far the other way. We have almost reached the opposite end of the spectrum.
The noble Baroness also said that with responsible government one does not have to increase powers to pay for vast local authority expenditure. I am sorry to say that Glasgow Council has just allocated a £225,000 budget to one councillor to produce pamphlets to promote gay rights and women's rights. I find it quite extraordinary that women's rights and gay rights should be allocated such a vast amount of money to enable posters to be put up to persuade us that being gay is
260
perfectly acceptable. What is wrong with being heterosexual? Why does money have to be spent to promote these rather peculiar notions?
I say again that we must be careful about where we go from here. If we make a mistake we cannot alter it. I plead with your Lordships again to think carefully before we take these last steps. Federalism is the way forward. We cannot stand still but we must not go forward and then come back two steps which would cause even more chaos than there is at present.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise to the House that because of the organisation of various duties of your Lordships' House I was unable to be in my place when I was due to speak earlier. Therefore I am afraid I have deprived my noble friend Lord Rowallan of the post that I always love to occupy, that of tail end Charlie. However, tonight I am happy to occupy that position again.
I speak tonight with a tinge of sadness—I shall concentrate my remarks on Chapter 7 of the White Paper—as three days ago your Lordships lost a good and noble friend, Lord Goold, who was the archetype of a Scottish accountant from Glasgow. He taught me a great deal. If there is one body of people in Scotland who have shaped and influenced my life more than any other it is the chartered accountants of Scotland. I pay tribute to them and to Lord Goold this evening.
I am delighted that the Minister is back in the Chamber. He may have one or two comments to make to the Celtic fringe. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, points to his noble friend. I shall address one or two points to the Minister later in my remarks.
Chapter 7 of the White Paper concerns financial arrangements. Paragraph 7.1 is charming. It states,
"by means of a defined but limited power to vary income tax".
I paid considerable attention to the opening remarks of the Minister. I congratulate him on saying "We shall be clear" only five times. That is quite a record. Whenever a Minister says that he will be perfectly clear, I know that we are about to get a re-run of "Yes, Minister". However, as I said, the Minister only used the expression five times. My noble friend Lord Mackay knows that I keep a fairly close score of such things. I am afraid that I was not able to award the Minister a half century tonight. I should be interested to know whether anyone can tell me who will define this power. Will it be the United Kingdom Parliament through the UK tax system, the Inland Revenue? Or will it be defined by the Scottish parliament? As regards limits, will those be applied by the United Kingdom through the Inland Revenue, or by the Scottish parliament?
Paragraph 7.2 concerns objectives. They are broad but that is fair enough. Paragraph 7.5 concerns the assigned budget. We have heard much about the Barnett formula. I hope only that that can be preserved. Enthusiasm has been expressed for devolution. I refer to events such as those witnessed on Thursday night at Edinburgh Castle. Either this is one of the greatest events that has ever occurred and therefore the accompanying tax powers of this institution will be widened, or there will be no

261
major change in the tax arrangements, as I think the Minister would wish, in which case one has to ask how that will be squared with all the celebrations and dancing that have apparently been taking place in Edinburgh? In Kirriemuir, on Saturday, all was peaceful. One would not have known that anything unusual was happening. The people there were quite sober. I shall not regale your Lordships with what happened when the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, took a dive in the air and was incapacitated. It was rather cruel to mention that.
I refer to paragraph 7.11 and tax varying powers. Perhaps the. noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, can assist me. He will see that paragraph 7.12 states that income tax,
"is broadly based and easy to administer".
The very next sentence states that,
"Income tax is relatively simple and easy to understand".
I say "Ho, ho" to that. Of course, it is easy to collect. Can the Minister possibly explain to me in simple words—perhaps he will give me an alpha for clarity—why there are those two sentences in paragraph 7.12?
An organ of the Scottish press which will be known to all Angus Peers, The Courier, had as its headline on Friday, 25th July:
"Dewar's devolution tax bombshell".
The newspaper referred to a controversial proposal which would cause a complete reprint of paragraph 7.13. On Saturday—surprise, surprise—there was half a page of script with the Secretary of State supposedly replying to that controversial proposal. The speech reflected virtually word for word what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has said. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, could explain that to me because I think that our mutual friend, Mr. Neville Southall, in all his glory would not be able to.
The first sentence of paragraph 7.13 is as clear as a bell. I do not wish to saddle the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with the performance of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, let alone with the acrobatics that occurred in the summer of 1996. I had thought that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, might reply to this debate. Noble Lords may have read the interview with the noble Lord in one of the Scottish broadsheets. No one could accuse him of acrobatics as regards the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
Paragraph 7.13 states that it is possible that the tax rate could be varied. It adds that the parliament's,
"ability to raise … £450m through the tax system will be preserved".
I want to find out about the tax system because 3p. on the basic rate will amount, apparently, to £450 million. However, if that is narrowed, one will not raise £450 million. Where is that money to come from through the tax system? The Secretary of State did not answer that question. Haply, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will not answer it. I look to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and to Mr. Neville Southall.
Paragraph 7.15 states:
"Savings and dividend income under current arrangements".
262
What on earth does that mean? Do "current arrangements" refer to what we have now or to what may be proposed by the Scottish parliament? If the Government mean that savings and dividend income will not be liable to this tax, one does not need the words "under current arrangements". The following sentence is as clear as a bell; namely, that we do not want distortions. That is fine but I still do not understand the significance of the words "under current arrangements". I should be grateful for guidance on that now or in the future.
Paragraph 7.16 concerns residence. I am only a simple accountant but I understand that we are looking at differences of residence in Scotland and in England within one United Kingdom tax structure. I shall not go into the concept of taking a sleeper and deciding whether at midnight one is south of Carlisle or whether one is in Scotland. We can do so when we come to the Bill. I look forward to great fun. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, may think that "residence" is simple. I find it hard.
Paragraph 7.19 refers to additional costs for employers. My noble friend Lord Nickson pointed out that some of the mathematics are difficult. Paragraph 7.19 states:
"An employer with 5 Scottish resident employees, (most cases in practice) would typically face setting-up costs in the range 00— £100".
Later it states that a larger company will spend only £5 per employee. However, in most cases £20 will be spent per employee setting up the system to satisfy the tax-raising power. That is a minimum figure. On top there will be many other aspects, including what the Inland Revenue will have to do. That is enough from me on the tax system. Others have dealt with local government expenditure and the rest.
I conclude by wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, thought hard before declaring with enormous enthusiasm that they wish to stand for this putative Scottish parliament. I paid particular attention to, and took pleasure in listening to, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. The noble Baroness used the phrase—it is beginning to trickle through to me, a simple man from Angus—gender balance. It goes down big in Glen Clova, Kirriemuir and, above all, at Station Park on Saturdays. It is very good and wonderful. But I look forward to my noble colleagues putting their names forward and being told, "Tough luck, lads. In this constituency it is women only. On the list it is women only." Do your Lordships really think that those two noble colleagues in your Lordships' House—first, there will be naughty, wicked guidance—will become a gender bender, a transvestite, or, far worse, really go the whole hog of a sex change in order to join the Scottish parliament? Not even I would consider it. I believe that we are on to a dangerous thing. Before those noble Lords leap with enthusiasm towards the Royal High School, they might ponder what gender balance involves.
I am sorry that when I sat in a slightly warmer place than now, I mildly barracked my noble neighbour Lord Mackie of Benshie, when he said that all good Scots

263
should remain in Scotland, by asking what he was doing here. In all seriousness, my noble neighbour's contributions throughout his career in your Lordships' House prove that there is enormous merit in Kirriemuir and Angus, and in Scots coming to your Lordships' House. If my noble friend went through a sex change, or whatever, and stood for the Scottish parliament, your Lordships' House, Parliament and public life in this country would be much the poorer. I apologise, but I believe that these points should be made.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or someone, will in due course help me regarding paragraph 7.13 and the doings of Mr. Neville Southall.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell.
First, from these Benches, I congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, on his thoughtful and amusing speech. We hope that we hear a great deal more from him. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to his family's connection. The noble Duke will know that the McThomas clan of Glenshee came out with Montrose in 1650 and were scattered to the four winds at Dunbar. Whether a branch made it to North Wales is a matter of hot dispute with my wife whenever I put on my McThomas kilt which clashes with her tartan.
Your Lordships are familiar with the painting opposite the Bishop's Bar depicting the Marquess of Salisbury speaking. He was addressing this House on 8th September 1893. Liberals would argue that the defeat of the Government of Ireland Bill yet again paved the way for further unrest in Ireland, the Easter Rebellion of 1916 and ultimately the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922—certainly a break-up of the United Kingdom. What, as he leans on the Dispatch Box, was Lord Salisbury saying? In his peroration, he quoted Macaulay:
"The repeal of the Union we regard as fatal to the Empire and we will never consent to it … never, though another Bonaparte should pitch camp in sight of Dover Castle, never till all has been staked and lost, never till the four quarters of the world have been convulsed with the last struggle of the great English people for their place among the nations".
Having quoted Macaulay, Lord Salisbury then concluded:
"I read that as the motto which I hope the Unionist Party will adopt … if you allow this atrocious, this mean, this treacherous revolution to pass, you will be untrue to the duty which has descended to you from your splendid ancestry, you will be untrue to your highest traditions, you will be untrue to the trust that has been bequeathed to you from the past, you will be untrue to the Empire of England".
The Liberal Government were defeated by 419 votes to 41 on that occasion and the Tory Peers were greeted outside the House by crowds singing "Rule Britannia" and letting off fireworks. How times have changed. Today the crowds of young cosmopolitan people who sit in the Gallery or who crowd outside this House are more likely to be singing the Beethoven European anthem.
264
I suppose that most of us were in school somewhere around the halfway point between 1893 and today. Those who were educated in English schools imbibed imperial values with their school milk. In Wales, Empire Day was quietly forgotten. It is not surprising that noble Lords from Wales and Scotland who were educated in England cling to the concept not so much of conservatism as of unionism. Of the 20 noble Lords who have spoken today against this White Paper, it is interesting to note that, while all of them have contributed of course to their localities and to public life in many ways, in their formative years 11 of the 20 went to a well-known school not far from Windsor. That may be a remarkably good advertisement for Eton, but it does not say much when we are told what is happening in Wales or Scotland. It indicates that at a formative time in their lives they received that kind of education.
We know the Ulster Unionist cry of "No Surrender". Salisbury called it the "no nonsense policy" towards Ireland. He underestimated the Irish. In 1886, in addressing the National Union of the Conservative Party, he declared that the Hottentots, Indians, Greeks, Russians and Irish were unfitted for self-government. He declared that only the Teutonic races were so fitted. It might be thought that the Unionist credo is now just a little out of date, if not thoroughly discredited. But in 1997 the Conservative Party manifesto said that only a Conservative Government will stand up for the Union and oppose a Welsh assembly. A Welsh assembly will begin the process of unravelling the Union and could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
In the debate today the noble Lord, Lord Rees, has declared himself to be a Welsh Unionist. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asked: what does the referendum do for the Union?
Many sensible and thinking Conservatives both in Wales and Scotland have rejected already the Unionist concept, notably in Wales, the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, and a former long-serving Minister of State, Sir Wyn Roberts.
There are still some antediluvian Labour Members of Parliament in another place who, having won their seats on the promise of a Welsh assembly, now argue against it. Your Lordships may think that the honourable thing is for them to resign and fight a by-election as independents. Those who were elected on that platform should realise that the prestige of their Government and the credibility of their Prime Minister rely upon the delivery of this first major piece of constitutional reform.
What is the emotional drive that elevates the United Kingdom above all else? The noble Lord, Lord Rees, referred to the invasion of the Tudors. In 1536 the formal extension to Welsh people of the rights and privileges of English people was a major reforming step from which Welsh people benefited. Wales, although it had been conquered by Edward I, was not looked upon as part of the realm of England. Its old constitution had been destroyed; the importation of arms was prohibited; offenders were dragged from Wales into England for trial in the English language; the Welsh were prevented from using fairs and markets; they were not even

265
allowed to enter the walled cities and castles that had been planted among them in Wales. It did not make for good government. That was the context in which a Welsh-speaking Tudor king, Henry VIII, passed an Act for laws and justice to be administered in Wales in like form as in England.
The preamble to that Act stated:
"because that in that same Country, Principality and Dominion, divers Rights Usages Laws and Customs be far discrepant from the Laws and Customs of this Realm and also because that the People in the same Dominion have and do daily use a speech nothing like, ne consonant to the natural Mother Tongue used within this Realm, some rude and ignorant people have made a Distinction and Diversity between the King's subjects of this Realm and his Subjects of the said Dominion and Principality of Wales whereby great Discord Variance Debate Division Murmur and Sedition hath grown between his said Subjects".
It sounds rather like the proceedings in this House from time to time. By that Act, Wales was annexed to England, and Welsh people had the right to enjoy the freedoms, liberties, rights, privileges and laws as other subjects of the King.
In a tribute to timely constitutional reform, Edmund Burke, referring to parallels between Wales and America, commented that,
"From that moment in Wales, as by a charm, the tumults subsided; obedience was restored; peace order and civilisation followed in the train of liberty—When the day-star of the English constitution had arisen in their hearts, all was harmony within and without".
Would that that harmony had continued. But history moves on. Things change.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees, said that the White Paper was long on cliché but short on analysis. In the past 25 years, the contraction of the Welsh economy and the erosion of the Welsh language and the Welsh way of life have led to a call for new and sensible constitutional arrangements. There was first administrative devolution, followed by an attempt in 1978 to set up a Welsh assembly.
In the Second Reading debate in 1978, the Conservative spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, outlined to the House what was then the policy of the Conservative Opposition towards Wales. It was that the structure of administrative devolution should be enhanced by the extension of the role of the nominated Welsh council. The noble Lord said:
"We believe that by introducing an elected element into this Council from Local Government, we would create a much more independent and worthwhile forum for Welsh opinion".
Of course, that never happened over 18 years. The Welsh council was abolished. The Secretary of State for Wales exercised the powers of a colonial governor.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, told the House today that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, gave him complete discretion as to how he should spend the resources that were put his way. The number of quangos proliferated to the point where the appointed members exceeded the number of elected councillors—there were 1,400 members of quangos in Wales, as opposed to 1,273 elected councils. There were in later years, as was commented on, a disproportionate number of Conservative supporters among those quango appointees.
266
In no other part of the United Kingdom is such a high proportion of public expenditure authorised by non-elected bodies as in Wales. Two-hundred quangos control a budget of £2 billion, one-third of Welsh Office spending and equal to the amount spent by local authorities throughout the Principality.
That problem, that lack of democratic control over the way in which money was spent in Wales, was exacerbated by the appointment of English Members of Parliament as Secretaries of State for Wales—perhaps the latter two on their way to greater things. Since Conservative representation was reduced in 1992 to only six out of the 38 seats, the Select Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee were supplemented by English Members of Parliament whose knowledge of Wales was by definition limited. At the same time the number of Conservative councillors elected in Wales dwindled as the party in Wales was voted out of power.
That perceived lack of democratic control, the perception that the Conservative Party controlled Wales through quangos, was the reason that the Conservative Party was rejected in the recent election in Wales as a force in the House of Commons. If there should ever be a Conservative Government again, it is unthinkable that the same control through non-elected representatives could ever be re-introduced.
There is a remarkable consensus in Wales among all the political parties as to the way to proceed. There is little quarrelling. There is a grandeur of vision. The development of indigenous industry; the improvement of communications; the reform of agricultural policies; the development of a positive relationship between Wales and the institutions of the European Union; the development of the Welsh language and its culture; education and skills training; a responsive health service—there is much for the proposed assembly to consider.
My plea to the opponents of these proposals is to think why they oppose sensible devolution as proposed in the White Paper. I shall not go into the details. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, outlined my view of the White Paper. They are modernising proposals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, said, they create excitement. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talked of the tangible feeling of expectation in Wales, as in Scotland.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said in opening the debate, it is the withholding of power that causes fragmentation. That is the lesson to be learnt from that debate in 1893 which your Lordships can see portrayed outside the Bishop's Bar. I support this White Paper.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not sure that that was the most inspiring speech that I have heard this evening. That prize probably goes to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for his soliloquy on the Potato Marketing Board. However, I must not allow myself to become adversarial. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would get upset if I did so.
I therefore begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, most warmly for his extensive and well-phrased letter which he took such

267
trouble to get to me yesterday, answering points that I made when we debated the Statement on the White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, opened his remarks with a plea for inclusiveness and non-adversarial politics. If that is a course that the Government intend to pursue, there may be some changes that they should make in the way that they are proceeding. The noble Lord portrayed the two White Papers as part of a wider plan. But what wider plan? They are not letting us in on the secret. As several of my noble friends said, what if these two elements of the wider plan do not fit in with what is eventually proposed for England? What if the English do not want to fit in with this plan but would prefer something different? Why are we being presented with a bit of it? Why are this Government following the course of action that they criticised so much? As my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell said, they are "trying it on the dog" in terms of trying it out on Scotland to see whether it works there; then they will apply the proposals to England—
Lord Sewel: What about the poll tax?
Lord Lucas: It would also help if, when we reach the Committee stage, noble Lords opposite would give a little attention to trying to answer the questions that they are asked rather than trying to avoid them. That might be seen to be part of an inclusive, non-adversarial style of politics. I do not see how that phrase fits in with the reversing of our perfectly sensible and correct amendment on holding referendums on the same day. That is an out and out piece of political gerrymandering. That takes the biscuit. How they justify that in terms of their new style of politics is beyond belief.
But I shall offer them an opportunity to show how they believe in their new philosophy. Should the referendums succeed and should the following Bills come to the statute book, as is clear from much that has been said today, there is a great deal of detail to get right. There are also some very important principles to get right in the Bills that will come before us. We shall have a great deal of time—free time, I might almost say—in the first couple of months of our return after the Recess. Would not it be sensible to bring at least one of those Bills before this House first, allowing us a long and sensible time to give proper consideration to it, rather than asking us to rush through long nights in what will be, I hope, the hot summer of 1998?
Perhaps I ought to establish my credentials for speaking on these subjects. I share with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the distinction of having been attainted in 1715. I did not spot any other noble Lord who spoke having that badge of courage on them. Being on the losing side is a very honourable state and both of us are getting used to it. The first Lady Lucas also had the distinction of marrying into a family which had lived in Wales for 250 years. The Welsh were extremely glad to see the back of them, but that is another story.
Three things worry me about the White Paper for Wales, on which I shall concentrate: the lost voice of Wales; the effect on the county councils in Wales; and, as has been said by many noble Lords, the effect on the
268
United Kingdom. Claims are made that the proposals will give Wales a better voice in Europe. But let us look at what is happening in terms of Members of the European Parliament coming from Wales.
They are now to be nominated by a list system, by parties, and are not to be the individual choice of the people of Wales. The systems which are offered for the Welsh to have an influence in the councils of Europe are to be at one remove. Now the Welsh people have a Minister who can go and speak on their behalf. In the future they are merely to be able to speak to people who will go and speak on their behalf.
The Secretary of State is reduced in office to a message boy. One of the few points on which I find myself in agreement with the Liberal Front Bench is that the Secretary of State will occupy a totally redundant post and cannot usefully perform any function because he will be seen to belong neither to the British Cabinet nor to the Welsh assembly. Neither side will trust him.
If the Welsh want to have a voice in Europe, surely they should follow their own distinguished example of the Welsh choir. If a group of people sing together, they can make an impression. If, at the end of the comprehensive reforms of the noble Lord. Lord Sewel, there are 12 different regions all singing different songs in solo and discord, one has nothing. It would be much better in terms of influencing Europe if we could find ways of working together and all find ways of promoting what the Welsh want, putting the power of Britain behind them rather than having Wales left singing on its own and left a weakling in a very large continent.
In government, the Secretary of State will become a figure of no influence in the British Government. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy outlined the difficulties and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised some very pertinent questions on that subject. In Parliament, what will become of the Welsh Grand Committee? There was no meeting on the Budget and no meeting on the White Paper. What is intended for that committee? The Liberal Democrat Party, in a non-adversarial act of singular inclusiveness, voted that there should be no Conservative representation on the Welsh Grand Committee. What is to become of MPs who will sit for Wales and Scotland? They will be unable to speak for their own native land and able to speak only on British matters or indeed English matters? What will be their status? How will they see themselves? Will they see themselves as the voice of Wales? No, because they cannot speak on Wales. Their influence will go. They will be seen by the English as aliens and enemies. The present system in which they have influence—indeed, in the case of Scotland an enormously disproportionate influence—will go. The voices of Wales and of Scotland in government and Parliament will be stilled.
Turning to county councils, what will be the relationship between the Welsh Assembly and county councils? It is quite clear that the Welsh assembly will not be a particularly powerful body. There is no significant power being devolved to it from Westminster. It will have to follow the Bills that we

269
pass. It will have to create—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will confirm this—secondary legislation in line with that required of it by the primary legislation that we pass. If that body wants to obtain power, the only place from which it can obtain it will be county councils. Indeed, if I read the White Paper aright, it will be given very considerable power of compulsion over those county councils. It will hold the finances; it will be able to twist their budgets in whatever way it feels necessary in order to get their compliance with whatever it wishes them to do; and it will be able to obtain finance in very considerable sums by restricting the amount of central grant which flows to them, making them raise the difference in council tax, or, if the system changes, from the business rate. On a very small scale, it is a parallel of what my noble friend Lord Nickson outlined so dramatically as lying in prospect for the Scots.
If the Welsh assembly is not to have that predatory role with local authorities, what is it to do? It will just be a talking shop, spending £100 million between now and its next election to no great function or benefit for the Welsh and depriving them of their voice in wider counsels, turning them inwards and leaving them nothing of what we have come to think of as a very great contribution by a small nation to our union.
Turning last to the question of the Union and to the instability which this proposal, coming on its own and not as part of the "greater package" of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will create for our Union. There is a worm in the apple that we are offered by the Government. The worm—if the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will pardon me—is Plaid Cymru; and its wish for independence for Wales and for severance from the Union. If we are to resist that, if that is not to rot the apple that the Government put in front of us, we must make sure that what we are creating will be stable. We must realise how bruised the English will feel at the end of the process which will end with the creation of the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly. My noble friend Lord Onslow succinctly illustrated the state of tenderness in which he finds himself, and I am sure that that is something which will spread.
We must be sure that the assembly is not created in such a way that people are rewarded for being disputatious by creating disagreements between the Welsh and the English. There must be defined powers. It is not at all clear how powers will be divided between the assembly and Westminster. It is not even clear how and in what form the Welsh will be allowed to create secondary legislation. It is not clear, though it is clearer, in the Scots White Paper how that will be done. There is a long list of reserve powers. When one runs through the first half, they seem logical enough. But when one reaches the second half there is an extraordinary mish-mash of bits and pieces over which there will surely be endless arguments as to whether they should be reserved. How can one rank the defence of the nation on one side, which clearly ought to be reserved, and things like regulation of estate agents and abortion on
270
the other? It is not a clear definition with which we have been provided. It is something that will be a continuous source of argument.
We will need strong systems of dispute resolution. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie were particularly trenchant on that. It is not clear from the White Paper how they will work. It is not at all clear whether the Government have any conception of how they could work. If disputes arise, they must be defused and dealt with fairly and quickly.
We must have systems where the voices of the assembly and the parliament can be heard directly by those they wish to hear them. It is no good their having to use the Secretary of State or other Ministers as postboys for their opinions. They will not believe that their opinions are being delivered correctly and they will be in constant dispute with the British Parliament as to what has been achieved and why what they wanted has not been achieved. We need mechanisms where their voice can be heard directly where it counts in government and indeed in Europe. They have not even been sketched out by the Government. For instance, it would be interesting to know whether it is part of the Government's proposals for this House that, in its revised and eventual reformed state, it will include representatives of the assembly and of the parliament, and that that is the way in which the Government intend the voices of those bodies to be heard in Westminster. It is part of inclusiveness that the Government should tell us those things and not keep them secret to themselves.
The White Paper leaves far too many questions unanswered and far too many doubts in reasonable hearts as to what the assembly is for and what the Welsh face if they agree to it. I hope that they will choose to reject it on the basis of the sad consequences for the Union and for Wales if this rather sketchy proposal goes wrong in a way that seems likely.
9.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am grateful for the speeches and contributions made by all your Lordships this evening. Perhaps I may mention three: namely, the notable maiden speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose; the particular contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, since he was last with us, having been translated, it is a pleasure to see him again with his informed contribution; and, finally, for reasons which are too obvious to need underscoring, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill. In a real sense this is a culmination of a legacy of which we all know the progenitor. The only "Mac" who has not spoken this evening seems to me to be Machiavelli, though I did detect a second cousin twice removed in the questioning of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell.
These are extremely important matters. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the way in which he approaches this matter. I promised to write to him and it is nice that we are able to remain on decent, courteous

271
terms, even though we hold different views. I am most grateful to him. There has been an enormous number of speeches this evening. There is something about Welsh and Scottish devolution. There were 37 speeches: two were made by myself and my noble friend Lord Sewel, which makes a total of 35 other contributions. I cannot conceivably, in the next 19 minutes, mention every noble Lord who spoke or deal with every point that was put.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, raised a specific question about the fact that there ought to be continuing debate and discussion through the summer. I welcome that. If on any occasion he wishes to write to me about a specific matter—or to my noble friend Lord Sewel if it seems more appropriate in the Scottish context—we are more than happy to provide him with information of the sort that he requires. I detected a similar approach in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. They are important questions. There is no point in treating them as a political football and I hope to avoid that. I shall deal with as many points this evening as I can but I am not being discourteous if I cannot deal with all of them.
Our approach is this—and I hope I am responding to the tone of your Lordships' speeches. First, these White Papers are a staging point on a longer journey. Secondly, that journey is undertaken to honour our specific, clear manifesto commitments. Thirdly, we believe—I know that many of your Lordships disagree—that the new and distinct methods of governing Scotland and Wales respectively will be a distinct and clear improvement on present arrangements. Most important and fundamentally, that improvement and the embedding of these new arrangements in our constitutional structure will strengthen and maintain the Union.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked the question quite plainly, as he always does: what is in it for the Union? My answer is this—diversity, development, accommodation for changed times and changed requirements and therefore, within a United Kingdom which is diverse, we offer new solutions for new times. That is what is in it for the Union. I can say two things positively and affirmatively. If this were to be, in my mind at least, the beginning of the fragmentation of a union which remains great, I would have no part in it. I say specifically in answer to the noble and learned Lords who have legal experience, not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, that if this had anything to do with an attack on judicial independence in Scotland, neither the Lord Advocate nor I would have anything to do with the proposals. I hope your Lordships will accept those assurances. They are meant to be absolute.
There are areas in which honourable men may honourably disagree. I impugn the motives of none, nor do I question the sincerity of any who have spoken. What I do say is that we have diametrically opposed views about the future constitutional arrangements for England, Scotland and Wales. I hope that we shall be open to argument. We shall not always agree. I hope that we shall be willing to consider constructive
272
suggestions and look kindly on real improvements to a scheme which I recognise is a developing scheme. But in the end it is plain: we propose to hold firm and stand fast on the general thrust of our proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, took up the phrase, which had been offered to him earlier, that this was like trying it on the dog first. It is not. I know that it was meant lightly but I believe that people in Scotland and people I know in Wales do not regard this as an experiment to see whether the dog would be sick. Yet the dog has been sick these many past years. It has been sick of overcentralisation. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on that point. It has been sick of having a voice which has not been heard. And it has been sick of devolved administrative matters which have not been the subject of devolved democratic control. That is important.
The point that my noble friend Lord Sewel made—that this is part of a new constitutional arrangement—is plain. The Government have said quite clearly that we are looking for a new elected mayor and a strategic authority in London. We are looking for new rights for our citizens by the incorporation of the European Convention. We are looking for legislation on freedom of information and a referendum on the voting system for electing Members of another place. That is part only of the pattern to which my noble friend Lord Sewel referred.
I think it is fair to say that few of the criticisms that we have heard today are new. That is inevitable because we have thrashed over these affairs over many hours. Some may not want power decentralised to democratically elected bodies. Some do not want government to be more open as it is convenient for governments to be secretive and to keep their own counsel. Some do not want the reform of Parliament or indeed of your Lordships' House. Some do not want individual rights to be increased. On those matters we must be content that we shall never agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred to Lady Crickhowell saying that 60 members was too great a number for a country the size of Wales. As he mentioned that, there floated through my mind the question to which I offer my own answer. How many members are there of the House of Lords? Is it 1,300 or 1,400? I cannot quite remember. If one is to look at reform, one needs to look at it over the whole spectrum.
The present Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition announced last weekend that a future Conservative government, if there were to be one, would not abolish a Welsh assembly or a Scottish parliament. I am not putting this as a partisan point because I welcome his change of view.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if it was not a change of view, I must have misread regularly over the past nine months. But if it was not a change of view, in this spirit of conciliatory inclusiveness which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and I share, I welcome the reaffirmation of the Conservative Party's stance. I do

273
believe that it will be a genuine benefit to the assembly in Wales and to the parliament in Scotland if the Conservative Party—if the referendums go our way—fully involves itself in the elections for the parliament and the assembly and is successful in having candidates elected.
We want variety. We do not wish to have the monolithic control of any single party, which is bad for democracy in principle and it has been proved bad in theory in large parts of our country, whatever controlling group has been in charge perhaps in a particular local government area, although I would not of course wish to pick Westminster as against South Wales. I do not dispute that it was true in South Wales. I spent about seven years of my life prosecuting corrupt local councillors who were originally Labour and when they were defeated by the ratepayers, next year it was the ratepayers as well. It is not a good idea to have too great a control in a single party. It is bad. I do not need to dissent from that because I shall carry on saying it until my dying day, however tedious it may be.
In our view, the establishment of the assembly and the parliament will not break up the United Kingdom. We believe that it will strengthen it because it will give moral validity and political purpose to the different workings of the Union. After all, defence, foreign affairs, national security, immigration controls, macro-economic policy and social security are all to be dealt with on the United Kingdom level. In negotiations between member states, as my noble friend Lord Sewel said, there is to be a single voice for the whole of the United Kingdom.
It is true that if one wants to be Lord Faintheart of Doom, of course one can find difficulties and one can say, as people did, that civilisation as we knew it would come to an end if women got the vote. Some people still complain about the passage of the great Reform Act of 1832. In any constitutional arrangements there are bound to be some anomalies. I believe that our task and duty are to reduce the anomalies and work towards a common purpose if, and only if, the people of Scotland have said that they wish for their own parliament and the people of Wales have said that they want their assembly.
Let us look for a second or two at the experience in Europe. Regional governments of various sorts have not led to the break-up of states in Europe; quite the reverse.
A number of your Lordships said that the cost of the establishment and the running of the assembly and the parliament is too high a price to pay. I profoundly disagree. I refuse to accept that democracy is to be acceptable only if it is free. It will cost money to run an elected assembly of 60 salaried members—more than for three Welsh Office Ministers—and more to run a Scottish parliament of 129 members than to pay the salaries, modest though they are, of six Scottish Office Ministers. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, saying "Very true" behind me. I shall not intrude into private grief about what opposition spokesmen are paid, since I bore it long enough myself.
These sums are in the round quite significant: in the sum, they are not. It will be about £6 per head in the Welsh assembly and it will be spending £2,400 per
274
head. The question is this to the people of Scotland: do you wish to pay this price? The question will be the same to the people of Wales. If they do, then they will know, but if they do not, we shall know the verdict of the people and ultimately that of the history of our time.
We believe that Scottish MPs have a full part to play in the Westminster parliament. A number of your Lordships have pointed out how many Scots there are in the Cabinet at the moment. That is true because Scotland is a talented as well as a disputatious nation, not dissimilar in many ways to the Welsh nation. But I dimly remember the names of Lang, Rifkind and Forsyth. Were they not Scottish Members for Scottish seats in the Cabinet? I would not wish to see any form of disqualificatory writ run against people simply because they have the infinite benefit of coming from Scotland. Indeed, I cast my eye across to my noble colleagues opposite. Quite a few of them seem to be from Scotland one way or another, do they not? Much of the higher judiciary in this country is Scottish originally. The rest seem to be South African now, but many of the judiciary are Scottish. Those were amusing points, but perhaps they were not at the significant heart of this constitutional disputation.
The Secretaries of State are not simply to be postboys. Their functions will diminish and I pay every credit to Donald Dewar and Ron Davies for that. I believe that they are unique as politicians in Cabinet posts who willingly wish to see their personal powers reduce. Why? The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is right. It is because Ron Davies in particular has come to a view, as has Donald Dewar, who has laboured in the vineyard for so long, that personal political advantage for the moment is not a determinant of all political action. All credit to them, even if one disagrees with their conclusions.
The Secretaries of State will have important functions to perform in our constitution. We are not proposing to give the Secretary of State for Scotland general powers of override on a day-to-day basis. We believe that that would conflict with our approach generally to the parliament in Edinburgh, which will be a mature parliament, as noble Lords have said.
The Secretary of State for Wales will not be travelling up and down on the InterCity from Cardiff to Paddington and back. He will be Wales's voice in Government. The Westminster Parliament will continue to pass primary legislation for Wales. It is right that the Secretary of State should be able to influence that. It is right that he should be able to argue financial considerations in respect of Wales. It is right that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be able to do the same in respect of Scotland. I see no difficulties here, except the painful realisation that present arrangements may not be set in stone for all time.
The Secretaries of State will also be contributing to policy-making at the UK level on reserved matters, such as defence, macro-economic policy, social security and national security. All of those matters are to be handled in common for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is right, suitable, proper and appropriate that the two Secretaries of State should take part in that.

275
Given good will, a reflective imagination and the triumph of nerve that are required for all these things, I do not believe that there is any reason why the Scottish executive, the Welsh assembly and the United Kingdom Government cannot work together. If one believes that nothing can be done, so be it. However, because we believe in our fellow citizens and in the desire for prudent evolutionary change, we believe that these arrangements can work well.
I agree entirely that if there are second-rate members, we shall have a second-rate assembly. That is why we want to give proper power in Scotland. That power will be greater than that which is to be given to Wales, but we are still giving a significant raft of powers to Wales. We are giving the power to spend, to examine, to check and to account for £7 billion of public money in a country which has—I say this in parenthesis—been successful economically. I reiterate the tribute that I genuinely pay to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. But economic advance is not the sole criterion on which we determine political success. It is extremely important, particularly if otherwise someone would have been unemployed or in an unskilled job, but it is not the only determinant. It is not the only benchmark. I believe that the significant benchmarks are found in questions such as: do we know what our political representatives are doing? Are they our masters or our servants? Can we question them? Can we make them accountable for what is, after all, our power and our money?
I have already written to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I realise that the time available to me is limited and that I should be attempting to keep to a speech of 20 minutes according to the indication given earlier by the Chief Whip—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I am not sure whether he is going to deal with any of the questions that a number of us have asked, so I wonder whether he will try to answer my question on paragraph 7.13 of the Scottish White Paper which related to the £450 million plus or minus.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was about to come to that point. It seems to me that I should try to deal with the more important questions, and I readily recognise that this is one of them. Before I begin, however, I want to put the record straight about the headline in today's Guardian which was repeated rather less boldly in the Western Mail. I regard it as a monstrous intrusion into Royal Family matters which has nothing properly to do with this political debate. I should put on record the press statement released by the Palace this morning at 11.55:
"The Guardian story is nonsense. The wording of the White Paper on this issue"—
the Welsh White Paper—
"means precisely what it says and The Queen was kept informed throughout its preparation. Far from The Queen not wanting to open the Welsh Assembly, it would he very much part of her constitutional role to do so".
I regard that story as a distinctly low blow and look for a prompt apology.
276
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked me a distinct question about taxation, to which I now turn. I believe that this matter is related to the question about domestic and non-domestic taxation. If it is convenient I shall deal with them together. The Scottish parliament will have full responsibility for the form and level of local domestic and non-domestic taxation, including non-domestic rates. The noble Lord also raised this question and I deal also with that. There will be practical constraints—for instance, the cost of collection—on the scope for new taxes but the Scottish parliament will be able to come to its own conclusions.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the noble Lord deal with possible disagreements between London and Scotland on revenues from the Continental Shelf?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no. That is a matter for the United Kingdom, not Scotland.
I am just looking for my note on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Things being as they are, I marked it carefully and then put it on one side. The note says "Very important. Must be replied to". I have just written that on the note. The current estimate of the Inland Revenue is that an increase of 3p. in the basic rate of income tax for Scotland will raise £450 million. That has already been said several times. If there were future changes to the UK income tax structure which eroded the Scottish parliament's ability to vary tax by this amount, steps would be taken to preserve the £450 million. Those steps would impact only on income tax, not on any other form of tax, and would be the object of and subject to discussion between the Scottish parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament.
A number of other questions were put. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked whether members would he paid differently if they were additional or first-past-the-post. The answer is that they would not.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray, asked about independents. They can stand as first-past-the-post candidates in the usual way, as they can here. As to his specific point relating to the additional member list, there is no reason why independents cannot form their own list if they so wish. That is a matter for them and for their own internal political arrangements. There is no reason why people should not be flexible if they want to make things work; if they do not they can do nothing at all, sit at home on their hands and get nowhere at all.
The subject of abortion was raised. We have proposed to reserve abortion and certain other health issues that are presently dealt with in a common UK framework.
In particular, a number of noble Lords raised a question as to the role of the Lord Advocate. I shall not specify them because my time is running out. I join with the approach that has been put. We want to give very full consideration to that matter. I agree that it is not simply a political question. It is, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said, much more subtle than that. It is bound into the constitutional and judicial fabric of Scotland, not just the historical fabric. I join them all in hoping that we can debate these matters fully, and, if

277
it is more appropriate, consult fully on those matters. That may be more fruitful as a way ahead in the weeks and months to come.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, asked a related question about the Judicial Committee. It will not always necessarily be possible for one or both of the Scottish Law Lords to sit on the committee. One hopes that that would be the practical experience. It will not be provided for in the statute because we believe such an arrangement is best left to the good judgment of the senior presiding judge at the time.
There was a question about how much MSPs would be paid. I did not answer that question before two noble Lords cheerfully offered themselves to serve in that capacity. Paragraph 9.3 of the White Paper says that the Senior Salaries Review Body will produce recommendations on that. That is probably best done in that arm's length way.
The number of Ministers will be for the first Minister to decide, subject to parliament voting the necessary funds. Minister's salaries will be determined by the Scottish parliament, as was proposed in the 1978 Act.
There was a question about parliamentary privilege, again, I believe, from the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It is intended that parliamentary privilege in the usual way—that is, in the defamation context—would be available to members of the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked about telephone tapping orders. They will be reserved matters because they fall within the ambit of national security. I imagine that your Lordships would think that to be a prudent course.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he give an answer to my question about capital punishment: whether that could be dealt with separately in Scotland?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that was the question I was hoping to side step. On my present reading of matters, subject, of course, as lawyers always say, to correction, even when they are not paid for their advice, the answer is yes. If I am mistaken I shall write to the noble Lord to correct that.
The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, asked when the independent committee on Scottish local government would be formed. We intend to consult shortly on the remit of the independent committee which will study ways of building effective relationships. There was a question about the difference in value between the Scottish White Paper and the Welsh White Paper. I think that I had better leave that one alone. You get two for the price of one in Wales, of course. I am afraid that I did rather tease the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, by offering him the Welsh version and not owning up to him that the English version was at the back of the Welsh version. I think that I had better leave that alone.
278
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked a serious question about the position of civil servants. I am being urged by my Chief Whip to sit down. Being obedient, I shall, and this may be the last question with which I can deal. The proposal is to maintain a unified home Civil Service. Opportunities for interchange between government departments will continue. Terms and conditions will be protected. The expectation is that staff will transfer to the Scottish executive since that is where the opportunities in their particular present areas of expertise will remain. I have done my best in the limited time—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I did give notice of my question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can answer immediately with an apology. The noble Baroness, as always, was courteous enough to ask a specific question which related to the Dearing proposals. I meant to deal with it, because she asked me or my colleague and noble friend Lord Sewel to do so. The question was, and I think that I paraphrase fairly: assuming that the Westminster Government came to the conclusion that the contribution per student should be £1,000 a head, could the Scottish parliament come to a different conclusion; that it should be £500 a head? The answer is yes. The shortfall would have to be made up by Scottish parliamentary funds. I apologise once more, especially as the noble Baroness was good enough to be so courteous as to forewarn me.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I know that we all want to go home, but I asked who would make up the funds for the English universities. The Scottish universities have great anxiety about that. If the Minister could clarify that now or by letter I should be grateful.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall do that, and I am obliged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Salmon
9.40 p.m.
Lord Nickson Lord Nickson rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Scottish Salmon Strategy Task Force; and what action they intend to take following the report.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had a long day and your Lordships may feel that the Minister, after a five-day Test Match, is moving to a limited overs game in darkness. I am grateful to him and to the Government for allowing me to ask this Unstarred Question in order to draw attention to the Scottish Salmon Strategy Task Force. During the past half hour I noticed the Benches begin to fill with Members coming to debate this important subject and I thank them.
I begin by declaring my interests, such as they are. I am president of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards. In that capacity, I was

279
enormously honoured and privileged to succeed the late Lord Thurso. I am extremely pleased to see his son, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, present today. I am a former chairman of the Atlantic Salmon Trust and the North Atlantic Salmon Fund and chairman of the River Conon District Fishery Board, on which river I have a part share in salmon fishing.
The subject is dear to the hearts of many people. The opportunity for such a task force has occurred only twice in the past century. There was the Elgin Commission in 1902 and the Hunter Report in 1963 and 1965. It is a unique opportunity to review this valuable Scottish asset. It has come shortly after the task force which investigated the situation in England and Wales on behalf of what was the NRA. I am equally glad to see my noble friend Lord Mills, who was responsible for that task force and the debate in this House on 1st May last year. There was also an Irish task force.
Those three task forces were not set up by coincidence but to address a very serious problem: the continued decline of this wonderful species throughout its range in the North Atlantic. The solutions and recommendations of the three task forces are to meet different circumstances and they are remarkably different, but I draw your Lordships' attention to them.
I wish to thank everyone involved for the contributions that were made during the consultation period. The task force received volumes of paper and read them all. We thought very hard about all the representations made to us. Furthermore, we had the opportunity to have in the membership of the task force a range of people with wide experience. We had scientists, professional managers and people who had administered Scottish fishing for a long time. I am enormously grateful to all members of the task force for the huge contribution that they made, not least to officials in the Scottish Office who were so assiduous in helping and guiding us and the scientists from the marine laboratory and the freshwater fisheries laboratory.
Since the task force report was published we have been most encouraged by the wide support for the strategy generally; not necessarily for all our specific recommendations but for the broad strategy itself. It is fair to say that we have had support, and the representations that have been made to the Scottish Office have broadly been supported by all the angling and conservation bodies concerned with salmon in Scotland.
I have been waiting for this moment for a long time. When the last censure debate of a government took place in this House it was St. Andrew's Day 1993. I was not a Member of your Lordships' House at that time but I happened to be sitting below the Bar because I had come to see my noble friend Lord Sanderson on another matter. The very first remarks that I heard were from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He noted the vast attendance on the Benches opposite because of the censure debate and said that such attendance was normal only when a social subject like salmon was being discussed. I thought how wonderful it would be if one day I had the opportunity to talk about that very important subject.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to it as a social subject; and it is. But it is of huge economic importance to Scotland. Your Lordships will have read that we have attempted to summarise that in our report. I say only that it is worth some £400 million in terms of economic value and it reflects some £70 million per year in spend.
The second point that I must make is about the very serious and real decline—something like 50 per cent. in the past 10 years—in the catch throughout the range. In Scotland, the catch of salmon by all methods has decreased from some 0.5 million fish in the peak in the 1960s and early 1970s to fewer than 200.000. Salmon fishing is important to the Scottish economy and is important recreationally. It is important also as regards jobs. Some 3,400 jobs, or the full-time equivalent, depend upon it. It is a very serious situation.
Our strategy is threefold. It is to protect the freshwater habitat to ensure the largest possible production and to look at all the practices which impact on salmon in fresh water; to give the salmon fisheries' administration more say and to have more consultation in order to reduce exploitation in the sea so that salmon can be managed locally and not exploited indiscriminately: and, thirdly, to ensure that we have a professional, properly funded, well managed salmon administration throughout Scotland. Our 64 recommendations analyse and follow that through.
In the time available I wish to touch on only one or two recommendations which are particularly important. I very much hope that the Government will look at them. The first is recommendation 19 which recommends the consolidation of legislation. That should be non-controversial. The Salmon Acts go back very nearly 200 years and are extremely complex. I give your Lordships one example. The recent fish pass regulations were made under the 1986 Act but a breach of those regulations is an offence only under the 1868 Act; the penalties are in the 1976 Act; and the powers of enforcement are in the 1951 Act. That is a very simple example. The more complicated examples defy description. I hope that the Government will look at that because consolidation has been sought for a very long time.
The next major issue is fish farming. We recommend the establishment of a new national authority because of the real threats which salmon farming poses to the wild species. In some cases, there are threats which are common to both. The Crown Estates have been the regulatory authority until now and I quote from its report published this week. It states:
"Commissioners have long been aware of the perception that the regulatory role would best be segregated from our responsibilities as owners of the seabed, and we recognise that the time is right to identify another body or bodies to undertake this task. We hope that early progress can be made in this direction".
I hope that the Government will look at that. Whether they choose our recommendation or that of SEPA or the local authorities, I know that they will look at that very carefully. It is urgent. The stocks on the west coast are near collapse and it is absolutely vital to have a regime for controlling salmon farming. Although that industry is extremely important throughout the west and north of

281
Scotland, it has a fairly major effect environmentally. It needs much greater control in terms of planning and expansion than it has had hitherto.
Recommendations 33 to 36 deal with high seas fishing. Again, that will be familiar to everyone and I am sure that other noble Lords will wish to talk about it. I shall only say that I have led deputations personally, or been part of them, to the last six Ministers for agriculture so far as concerns the north east drift nets. Now that we have a Minister for agriculture who is a salmon fisherman and who, on my invitation, became a member of the council of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, I very much hope that he will take a different view from his predecessors.
Finally, as regards estuarial nets in Scotland, I did not expect that the Government would necessarily support our recommendations. However, I should make one point. We have not suggested in any way that the heritable rights of netsmen should be taken away or that this traditional industry should be stopped, we have merely said that they still take more than twice the catch of the anglers and that they contribute a very tiny percentage of the £2.5 million that is spent on salmon conservation by the private sector. All we are suggesting is that the netting effort should be limited and that the way to do this is by licensing.
I very much hope that the Government will see fit to implement what they can prior to legislation and that they will instruct their officials to start preparing a Bill for the Scottish parliament to carry those measures through at a later date.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, for giving us the opportunity to debate his splendid report on Scottish salmon fishery issues. I believe that praise is due to him and his team of collaborators, assessors and secretariat for a detailed, informative study of a management strategy for Scottish fisheries. I believe that it will remain for some years to come a Bible of knowledge on the Scottish salmon industry and related issues. The House is hoping for a positive response from my noble friend the Minister to many of its recommendations, all of which have been endorsed by the Salmon and Trout Association, leading soon, we hope, to a consolidation measure of fisheries legislation.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, I have for some years taken an interest in the conservation of wild salmon. Time after time I have raised the issue of the North Sea drift-net fishery, which is dealt with on pages 25 and 26 of the report. The report indicates that,
"more than 80% of the fish caught in the drift net fishery of North East England were returning to their native rivers on the East Coast of Scotland. including the Tweed, and others as far north as Aberdeenshire … at its peak in 1970 this fishing took 95,000 salmon … Since 1980 catches have been lower, fluctuating around 50,000 fish a year".
This North Sea drift netting is also having a deleterious effect on the only salmon river in Yorkshire—the River Esk—and undoubtedly is taking a severe toll of the Scottish salmon returning to their spawning rivers.
282
I believe that this netting of salmon in the North Sea is indiscriminatory and that it should cease. Her Majesty's Government and the Environment Agency have a statutory duty to "maintain, improve and develop" fisheries. Through allowing this practice to continue, the salmon rivers are being denied the right to improve and develop their fisheries. I maintain that the Environment Agency is in breach of its statutory duty, because this is obviously a bad management practice.
On salmon conservation, why should the Government continue to be internationally embarrassed in the council of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation? The North Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Salmon and Trout Association and international and national salmon conservation bodies have campaigned for years to conserve salmon stocks and persuade governments to cut back on salmon netting—with some success overseas but not with the British Government. Therefore, I totally agree with Recommendation 33 that Her Majesty's Government should urgently process the closure of this drift-net fishery: indeed, the report strongly recommends that an early date for its closure should now be fixed.
One has only to realise what a transformation this act would bring about—50,000 extra salmon. Beneficiaries would include rod anglers, the whole trade of Scottish industry salmon activity, and the rural economy, allied with a major benefit to salmon conservation. And there would be new jobs. We should bear in mind that the rod angler would be taking few compared with the drift netters. In my case it would be few indeed.
John Winter, secretary of the Bishop Auckland Angling Club, has produced a report on how best to end North Sea drift netting. I have provided the Minister with a copy. Without going into detail, the Kielder Hatchery in the Northumbrian region costs £123,000 to run. It was built to provide 160,000 salmon pan per year to supply the River Tyne due to losses in its construction. Between 2,000 and possibly 8,000 could be expected to return, but of course the drift netters would reduce that drastically. If there was no net fishery, it is estimated that 8,500 adult salmon would return to the Tyne. The cost of paying the North East netsmen not to fish—that is, pay them their profits—is £110,000, against £123,000 to maintain the hatchery. I think that is an idea worth considering.
Finally I draw the Minister's attention to two well known and increasing menaces—the predators, the seal and the cormorant. I hope that when he replies the Minister may be able to indicate some methods, lethal or non-lethal, that could be introduced to curb the rising populations of these salmon killers.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, and to his task force on the production of what is undoubtedly an excellent report. My knowledge of salmon fishing in Scotland is confined to the Scottish Dee, but this is a searching analysis of the problems which have afflicted that river above all in north-east Scotland, perhaps in Scotland generally, over a long period of time.

283
I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that the report was in good hands, having heard the competent and searching analysis of the Government's proposals which the noble Lord gave in the previous debate. The report identifies the crisis in salmon fishing. Those of us who engage in the sport have had a great deal of time On our hands to discuss precisely what has been going wrong. I think we all started with a belief that if only the estuarial nets could be bought up that would solve the problem. That happened on the Dee and the problem continued. Then there was dredging at sea. All sorts of approaches were made to Faroe fishermen and others. It was hoped that that would solve the problem, but it has not. There has been a dramatic decline and there must be another answer.
Some take the view that it is the increase in dredging or ditching on the uplands that surround the watercourses that is to blame, and that forestry has contributed to a run-off. However, one matter which has not been fully represented in the report and which is perhaps holding centre stage at the moment is pollution caused by the use of new sheep dips. I wonder whether the noble Lord has thought of that and whether it has been addressed. Earlier this week I was pleased to hear on "Farming Today" that neutralisers have now been found at a cost of about one-fifth of the sheep dips that are being used. If that is perhaps one reason why the salmon population of the Dee has diminished, perhaps regulations can be considered that where new sheep dips are used that replace the organophosphates, it will be a requirement that neutralisers should be used before the sheep dip is disposed of.
One of the contributors to the report was the Dee Salmon Fishing Improvement Association. I acknowledge the considerable attempts that that association has made with its catch and release scheme and with its attempts to improve the stock of salmon in the Dee. The catch and release scheme has worked reasonably well. It is a pity that not all riparian owners on the Dee are participating in it. It is a shame that one or two owners and some involved in timeshare schemes are not going along with the work that is being done to try to conserve the salmon in that river.
I draw another matter to the noble Lord's attention. I have looked at the contributors to the task force. I am not sure whether I can identify among those contributors anything from the ghillies. They have formed an association on the Dee because they are naturally concerned about their livelihoods. They are competent, experienced and knowledgeable men. They probably know more about the practical problems and more about the ecology of the area than anyone else. I know that they wish to contribute to anything which would help not only to preserve the salmon stocks but also, ultimately, to preserve their jobs.
Salmon fishing in north-east Scotland is vital to the local economy. Many jobs depend upon it, not just those of the ghillies. The riparian owners and those who deal in tackle in various shops and others depend upon the catches continuing. This report identifies important areas for action. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who is to reply to this debate, and who knows the area
284
even more intimately than I do, will take the comments that I have made on board and that this excellent report is put into effect.
10.1 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we are indeed grateful to my noble friend Lord Nickson for his report and for the work of his committee. It is a comprehensive report and as someone who has to plead guilty to being one of the six Ministers whom he visited to talk about salmon in his time I know just how difficult his job has been and how difficult the job of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be in this area. I trust, however, that the Government who inherited the report will endorse it and will not allow it to gather dust on the shelf or indeed wait until the Scottish parliament may inherit it.
At the outset I shall not say much about the area fisheries board management although I know that many of those involved in the management of fisheries up and down Scotland will have given their views, and very strong views. Having listened to some of them, I suggest that the Government make haste slowly and, where existing boards are able to demonstrate that inherent deficiencies, as described in the report, do not apply to them, they might be left alone.
I wish to spend a little time on chapters 1 to 6 which are the guts of the report. The latest figures produced by the North Atlantic Salmon Fund show that in just over 20 years we have seen wild Atlantic salmon catches crash from over 4 million fish caught per annum to 800,000 in 1996, an all-time low. It is against that background that the recommendations of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, must be viewed, in particular when that tireless ambassador for the future of the Atlantic salmon, Orri Vigfusson says that in 1995 Canada, Norway, Ireland and UK net catches represented between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent. of their fisheries and most are interceptory. That is why I agree entirely with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that Recommendation 33 is one of the most important in the report. It calls for an early closure of driftnet fishing off north-east England, starting with the total closure of such fishing before 1st June. Remembering, as I do, the desire and insistence of the European Commission to clean up the North Sea, surely the Minister might find some friends at court in Brussels to hasten this environmentally friendly act. Drift netting at sea is considered environmentally unfriendly and what is done in the North Sea could shame Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to do something about their drift netting at sea.
This leads me again, following the noble Lord, Lord Mason, to the problem of seals in our estuaries and our rivers. If I had a criticism of this report and I were writing a school report, I should say, "A hit weak on seals". The report points out in paragraph 1.25 that the grey seal population increase has been of the order of 30 to 50 per cent. since 1990 and that seals are definitely predators of salmon. Recommendation 50 states that further assessment is necessary. Recommendation 51 is slightly better: it urges consideration of non-lethal methods of control.

285
Considering the promising Canadian results of administering contraception to seals, I recommend urgent action in that area before it is too late.
I wish to make one or two other brief observations. I cannot understand why weirs (or, as we call them in our part of the world, caulds) are still in existence in rivers where their use has passed into history. The old mills in the Borders used to require caulds and mill lades to provide water power. They have long since ceased to serve any useful purpose. While paragraph 5.14 deals with that matter, I believe that the guidance should indicate a presumption against the need to continue with such obstacles and refuse requests for enhancing such outdated obstructions to the free passage of fish.
I conclude by asking the Minister a favour, with which I am sure he will be delighted to try to deal. The request, which comes not only from myself, but from many others including Greenpeace, is this: please stop the industrial fishing for sandeels around the Isle of May at the entrance to the Firth of Forth. The forum is in Brussels where Britain has access as of right to the Council of Ministers. The discussion is with Denmark. In the interests of our environment, our Scottish sandeels should not be turned into Danish fishmeal.
10.6 p.m.
The Duke of Roxburghe: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Nickson for bringing this Question before the House, and for the excellent report of the Scottish Salmon Strategy Task Force, chaired by him and produced early this year. I firmly support all the comments that my noble friend has made tonight.
I must equally declare an interest as a River Tweed proprietor, a Tweed commissioner and a trustee of the Tweed Foundation, and, I suspect, the only person who actually managed to catch a fish today before travelling down to this House—which, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will be glad to hear, I released.
I wholeheartedly commend the task force on producing an excellent and comprehensive report. It covers all the issues relevant to salmon management in Scotland. The task force has appreciated the important significance of wild salmon to the economy of Scotland and has made many sensible and wide-ranging proposals.
There are very good reasons why the Government should act quickly. As was mentioned, the total of salmon and grilse caught in Scotland has declined since 1952 from over 400,000 per year to less than 200,000. More importantly, the spring fish average has declined from 100,000 to 10,000. The fishery is of enormous economic importance. The report identified that in 1988 the gross expenditure by salmon anglers in Scotland was £34 million a year, and that, including indirect spending, it was £50 million. The present estimate is £70 million. A recent survey by Deloitte Touche for the Tweed Foundation produced a figure of £13.5 million within the Tweed area alone.
This is important for two reasons. The benefit applies in rural areas where jobs and economic activity are at a large premium. The benefit comes at a time of the year
286
when little other tourism is taking place and plays a major part in maintaining the viability of hotels, shops and other businesses. As a hotel owner in the Borders region, I firmly support that.
There are three key strategies proposed by the task force which provide a coherent and effective approach to the conservation and sustainable exploitation of Scotland's wild salmon into the next century. These are: first, a more representative and better-informed administration through the 20 new fishery areas; secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said rather more cogently than I can, a reduction in the interceptory exploitation of salmon both off the north-east coast of England and in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will be little surprised that I should return to that matter. It cannot be right, and it is recognised internationally as such, that the north-east drift net fisheries should intercept salmon, 80 per cent. of which are of Scottish origin.
I should be most interested to hear the Minister's views on those proposals, particularly perhaps with regard to any extension of the close season to protect the vital spring stocks. The previous government, dare I say it, paid mere lip service to the reduction in interceptory exploitation of salmon and I hope that the Minister can give this House some comfort.
Thirdly, there must be increased habitat protection and improvement in the Scottish freshwater habitat. That area is vitally important to improve the upstream habitat of the young salmonids and brown trout, with double or even triple benefit to the environment and knock-on benefits for wildlife and marginal bankside vegetation. Much of that work has already been carried out by the Tweed Foundation and similar bodies on other Scottish rivers and is supported by SNH, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and many other conservation agencies.
The report offers an opportunity to bring a more professional and scientific approach to managing that important national asset. It will require major changes in the industry itself and also co-operation with the many organisations concerned with protecting and improving the environment: SNH, SEPA, the forestry authority and local authorities.
Too little has been done to date. The Hunter Report was published in the 1960s but very few of its recommendations were carried out because of a change of government. Many points from the Hunter Report have been reiterated in the report under discussion. I trust that we shall not have to wait another 30 years to see them implemented. It would be a great pity and a waste of resources if the Government did not support all the work that has been carried out to date by all the agencies involved with wild salmon. I very much hope that the Government will act now to progress the recommendations contained in the report and I whole heartedly support it.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, it is somewhat deplorable that, when at last we are able to debate a report published in mid-February, we are restricted to five

287
minutes each. We do so against a background of ever-declining numbers of Atlantic salmon. Between 1969 and 1975 the recorded world catch was never less than 10,000 tonnes. In 1996 it was less than 3,000 tonnes. Sadly, the previous government would not respond properly to the seriousness of the situation. I hope that the new Government will do so.
I had the pleasure of working with the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, when he was chairman of the Atlantic Salmon Trust and I was vice-chairman. I expected that any report that he produced would be very good and, indeed, this is a model report. I am not competent to comment on the proposals about the administration of fisheries in Scotland, but the other recommendations seem to me eminently sensible. I particularly welcome what is proposed about the restriction of fisheries to locations close to rivers of origin; about the north-east drift net fisheries; on the need for a new dialogue with the Irish; on forestry operations; on seals; on sea lice and fish farms and especially that medicines should be environmentally acceptable; on fish farming and wild salmon; on sandeels; and on the need for research into the survival of salmon at sea, on which perhaps European Union funding might be sought.
I hope to hear the Minister say that the Government will implement the Nickson recommendations fully and speedily, thus initiating firm action which, if the Government's plans work out, can be taken forward after the year 2000 should a Scottish parliament then become responsible for fisheries and the environment in Scotland and we here are restricted to discussing salmon fisheries in England. However, then, as now, it will be important that policies are co-ordinated with the Environment Agency for England and Wales and those responsible for fisheries in Northern and Southern Ireland. I still believe that we ought to have a national salmon management policy embracing the whole United Kingdom.
The Salmon and Trout Association, of which I have the honour to be chairman, welcomes the broad thrust of the report, especially the proposals on coastal netting and that an independent regulatory authority should be established to control the siting of fish farms to prevent their damaging wild salmon and sea trout.
The association wrote to the Minister on 21st July about 15 new applications for fish farms, some in sensitive areas close to rivers and estuaries. I hope that the Minister, to whom I gave notice, can reassure me that the association's concerns will be addressed. The association believes that the report does not emphasise strongly enough the need for recreational fisheries to have an abundance of fish, not merely enough fish to reproduce and maintain their existence.
When we debated the salmon strategy for England and Wales on 1st May last year, I expressed some doubts about the wisdom of basing management decisions too closely on the spawning escapement, saying that we should be careful not to be too hasty in taking management decisions on fairly speculative information. That is still my view and it appears to be the view of the task force.
288
All in all, this is an important report. It seems to me highly desirable that it should not be pigeonholed but should be the basis of a determined policy to restore salmon stocks in Scotland and the fishery which is of such value to Scotland's economy.
10.16 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nickson deserves congratulations on his report. I should first like to declare an interest as a riparian owner and as a member of the Council of Tweed Commission. The report comes some 30 years after the publication of the Hunter Report. That was a comprehensive report made in the 1960s when few of its proposals were implemented because there was a change of government. Today we are experiencing a change in government. But these are not political questions and there should be no repetition of what happened to the Hunter Report.
The aim of the report is to promote the passage of salmon and to improve their habitat. The aim is to try to satisfy anglers but only so long as there is abundance. My impression is that, broadly speaking, the task force is reasonably happy about in-river management. It does not recommend great reforms. The present system whereby the fishery owners are the main controllers is to continue. In certain areas where the rivers and their finances are small it is suggested that they amalgamate in order to obtain better scientific advice.
Most rivers would accept that proposal provided they are not forced to do so against their wishes. Certainly it will be of interest in cases where financial aid is needed to improve habitat. Larger units are not necessarily good. To lump a small river in with other rivers for the sake of economics and because of a need to produce a tidy strategy loses the point of managing a river coherently and takes away from fishery owners the opportunity to do things their way.
The variation between rivers is great. The task force reports, taking rivers as a whole, that the number of spring salmon caught by the rods is overwhelming compared with the nets. That is not so on Tweed, where the overwhelming exploitation by the nets raises a crucial question. I would highlight the recommendation to consolidate legislation. There is a need for a comprehensive system and for tighter legislation over predators in particular. The seals are affecting many rivers. The overall seal catch is greater than the total caught by nets and rods.
The goosander problem is killing off huge populations of smolts. A licence to kill 75 goosanders in the Tweed basin is far too small a cull. On my beat alone there is a resident population through the winter of about 40 goosanders. I suggest also that the powers of SEPA be extended to include responsibility for good husbandry on the fish farms so that the sterility growth on the sea bed is interrupted. The food chain for young wild salmon would be preserved and there would be less risk of disease. The report recommends an independent regulatory authority, and the nomination of SEPA for that role might be acceptable to the Government.

289
The report recommends a code of practice on river engineering works, whereby area fishery boards are consulted. Consultation in these matters is not enough where obstructions can so easily be built in modern reinforced concrete which are expensive and difficult to alter other than cosmetically. Caulds are an example where river boards should be given powers of control. At present, owners are able to recreate them simply in order to improve their own fishery and often at the expense of others. The effect of a cauld cannot be known until it is built. A cauld affects the passage of fish in varying ways, depending on its construction, on temperature and on river flows. Most caulds are now irrelevant. The proposal is to give the Secretary of State powers over fish passes. Would it not be simpler to give river boards the powers to prohibit caulds?
Drift nets have already been covered but we believe that the United Kingdom should provide an international lead. Ministers and MPs in this country have been far too parochial in their approach to drift netting. The tendency to monitor industries like drift nets and the hoovering of sand eels for fertilisers rather than to close the industries is to adopt the easy way out.
Speaking as a Tweed commissioner, I am happy that our existing set-up is recommended to stay. The Tweed Council is administratively competent. We have been leaders in matters concerning the habits of salmon and their habitats, for which we recently received an award from Atlantic Salmon Federation. The cost of all this research is heavy. Let us hope that all the effort and expense will not be wasted. Should the spring run not improve, the economy of the Borders will suffer. That is one of the reasons why my noble friend's report is so important.
10.21 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a member of the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board. There is no time in this debate, unfortunately, for the thanks which I would very much have wished to give to those who have produced the report.
Our salmon stocks are dwindling. Action is urgently required. This valuable asset must be preserved. Human predation is taking a heavy toll. Every effort must be made to conserve stocks of salmon.
The report recognises that the main instruments of protection have been the individual fishery boards which cover most of the main rivers of Scotland, but which are working with varying degrees of efficiency. The boards are affected by the geological layout which affects the cost of management, and indeed the expense of which is often responsible for a number of the smaller rivers having no board at all.
The proposal that there should be "area" boards is important as the areas covered must be big enough to support sound management structures, and all rivers should be covered. However, the task force seems to have based its calculations on the number of fish caught, which gives an estimate of income but does not seem to allow for the geographical layout and therefore of the costs of management required. I would suggest that the
290
Secretary of State sets up an advisory committee independent of pressures from any particular board to examine the number and layout of the new area boards.
It is only right that those who own the fishing rights should pay most of the cost of protecting them. But with more and more pressures being put upon the fish and their habitats, more and more protection is required, with the inevitable increases in costs. There are, however, many beneficiaries from salmon fishing apart from the owners—hotels, tackle shops, garages, travel agents and many others—so there is every justification for some public funds being made available to protect this wonderful valuable asset.
This raises the question of what, if any, outside public body should be represented on the area boards. Area boards must be efficient tools of management of the fisheries, and they must not be loaded with a lot of "dead wood" or, perhaps worse, vociferous voices from persons lacking the necessary knowledge required for what is a specialised subject. SEPA or SNH should always be available for advice if required.
Having sat for a number of years on a large purification board—now swept into SEPA—I remember that fishery matters were not a subject of great concern to the members, and so a sub-committee of three of us was set up to work with the officials, and reports were submitted to the full board. That cut down the amount of time considerably. On the old Inverness District Council I was often a lone voice on fishing matters as there was scant knowledge of and little interest in the management of salmon fishing.
It is vital that the area boards do not have a membership bigger than is absolutely necessary and that they consist of people with as much knowledge as possible of the rivers which they are administering and have a desire to conserve the salmon stocks in those rivers. Those with such qualifications are quite likely to be the owners or the fishermen.
However, it is equally important that the board members are not allowed to interfere with the rivers by changing the pools or altering the freshets from hydro locks just to suit their own fishings. It is important that as many fish as possible, within the parameters of what stock a river will carry, are allowed to get to their spawning beds. One only has to look at the way the numbers of spring-running fish have declined.
I would like to support my noble friend Lord Nickson on the original legislation. It is well past time for a consolidation Bill. I hope that the Minister will take note of this. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency needs powers to regulate the abstraction of water. The British Waterways Board has had a disastrous effect on some rivers, but comes under the ministry for the environment in England, so our fisheries suffer badly. Can the Scottish canals come under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland, perhaps under his fisheries committee in Edinburgh, which oversees hydro-electric schemes? Perhaps the Scottish parliament may change that.
Finally, we need a highly efficient, well-trained staff of bailiffs who will be capable of dealing with the very sophisticated modern poacher. They will need to be well

291
paid. Recently, one evil gang of poachers rented fishings and whilst legally on the river they built a trap out of sight and inside a tunnel, leading to the fish pass in the hydro dam. The marked decline in spawning fish was noted over a two-year period, but by luck the trap has now been found and that business has been stopped.
10.26 p.m.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, for this most interesting and informative report. It could have been called, "All You Need to Know About Salmon in Scotland in 1997". The only thing it sensibly omitted was advice on how to catch them.
We have been declaring interests and I shall do the same, too. I am the president of the UK branch of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, of which until recently the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, was the chairman. I am also the chairman of the Anglers Conservation Association, of which the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, was also recently the chairman. Fishing is a wonderfully non-party political subject and long may it remain so.
The timing of this debate, while not ideal as to the time of day, is excellent as to being early in the life of a new Government with the Labour Party back in power again. From the comfortable neutrality of these Benches I can say that I found the approach of the Conservative Governments of the past few years to this problem to be deeply disappointing. That has been referred to by others. The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, was clearly also frustrated, but he cannot be quite as frank about it as I am.
I participated in a number of debates in this House and we were constantly told that there was nothing to worry about and that the scientists believed and advised us that there was a sustainable population of salmon. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, covered that quite nicely by calling for there to be more of an abundance of salmon rather than a merely sustainable population.
I have caught at least one salmon every year since 1951, except for one year when I was in Australia, where, sadly, they do not have them. I have watched the inexorable decline, and one can see it even beyond the terrifying figures that we have been looking at. Figure 6 in the report shows a drop of about two-thirds in the catch from the late 1970s and early 1980s to today. That is a terrifying figure. One wonders where it will finish.
Perhaps we can look to the new Government for a rather more helpful approach. Certainly the last Labour Government did some splendid work. I have said it in this House before in one of our earlier debates—the noble Lord, Lord Mason, remembers because he is smiling—and I say it again, that the only recent hero in the sad story of salmon was the last Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, Willie Ross, who so rapidly totally banned driftnet fishing off the coast of Scotland. That probably saved the species in the UK. I once jokingly suggested in this House that a statue should be erected to him at the mouth of every major salmon river. No one has taken me up on that, but I believe that someone should because he moved swiftly and decisively.
292
Turning to the recommendations, I have to say, as did one or two other noble Lords, that I found the general tone of them to be a little too timid, tinged with political expediency in some cases, a point to which I shall come in a moment. Some are really the bare minimum of what is needed. I urge the Government to regard them as a bare minimum and, if possible, to adopt a more robust approach. This is a serious problem.
Most of the recommendations are eminently sensible and those that follow on from the principle enunciated in Recommendation No. 24 (that fish must be caught as close as possible to the river of origin) are absolutely vital. All the other drift netting things follow from that. As we have already heard, that was proposed in 1962—and 35 years later we are still talking about it.
Where I think that the recommendations are weak are in two areas on which other noble Lords have already touched. I refer first to seals, a difficult subject, but I believe that the human race has a duty sensibly to manage other species and to achieve a proper balance of populations. If I have done my arithmetic correctly, it seems that the score is Seals 2, Human Race 1, when it comes to catching wild salmon. That is the wrong balance as far as I am concerned. The idea of contraception for seals is fascinating, but I think that it will require more than that. Most scientists would support a carefully controlled culling. But that is difficult because of the public opinion problem.
The other area where I think that a more robust approach is needed is in relation to piscivorous birds. I played an active part in our consideration of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. We decided then that cormorants were not a big problem because they were basically seabirds. They have subsequently multiplied immensely, have come inland and are a great problem to all freshwater fisheries.
To conclude quickly, progress on the broad strategy of the recommendations is absolutely essential if this wonderful and vitally important creature is to survive for our grandchildren.
10.32 p.m.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Nickson and indeed all of the task force on producing an excellent report. It is a major piece of work and I very much hope that it will receive the positive response it deserves from the Minister.
First, I wholeheartedly endorse the concept of having a national strategy for managing salmon in Scotland. I myself had the privilege of being involved in drawing up a similar strategy for the management of salmon in England and Wales. For far too long I think it is true to say that there has been a rather piecemeal approach to salmon management in these countries. Such an approach fails to recognise the need for a national framework of policies, objectives and procedures in order to safeguard and make best use of what is a very valuable national resource. On more than one occasion when the English and Welsh strategy was being drawn up, I was asked, "Why don't we have one strategy for the United Kingdom?". I do not need to explain to your

293
Lordships that at present the very different legal, administrative and funding arrangements would make this difficult, if not impossible.
However, I would advocate that we need to operate to the same principles of salmon management and not just in the UK, but throughout the North-East Atlantic. This, I believe, is happening but there are also some important differences; in particular, the very different approach taken in the two strategies to the concept of spawning targets.
The setting of targets, including spawning targets, and the monitoring of stocks and the performance of fisheries against these is the cornerstone of the English and Welsh strategy. We believe that spawning targets should be set for individual salmon rivers to aid their management. On this point, I must differ from the noble Lord, Lord Moran, which I am glad to say is a rarity. It is not, we believe, essential to set spawning targets for every component of the stock; nor to set quotas to control precisely the catch of each of these components. Instead, control can be achieved by constraints on catches set in relation to trends in salmon abundance and their compliance in recent years with spawning targets.
Admittedly, at present the use of spawning targets is a relatively crude tool. Nevertheless, their importance is recognised internationally. ICES has advised the North-East Atlantic Commission of NASCO to develop the use of spawning targets. If Scotland were to reject this approach entirely I fear that it could compromise the most effective management of its own stocks and those of other European nations. As regards the principle of spawning targets, I believe that it is important to achieve a consistent view.
Perhaps the parts of this report on which those of us who come from south of the Border have a legitimate right to comment are those that deal with salmon fisheries that lie between and are exploited by our two countries. As to the Solway fisheries, it is suggested in the report that the time is right to look again at how these fisheries can be managed successfully. To do that it is proposed to set up a commission. However, I am advised by those who have responsibility for the management of those fisheries on the English side that an alternative way forward may be considered that provides a common definition of the Border location, a management group comprising representatives of the bodies involved from both countries and a "Solway offence" that would apply to anyone fishing in the Solway without either permission from a Scottish owner or a licence from the English authority. I do not have time to expand on the proposal. However, it would appear to have the benefit of bringing a new and eminently practical approach to an old problem, involving all those who are responsible for managing the fisheries on the ground, as well as being non-partisan.
As to the north-east coast drift net fishery, it is understandable that the task force recommends an early closure. I do not disagree with that recommendation. I have said as much before in this House. However, it is encouraging that the phase-out is currently progressing twice as fast as originally predicted. It is
294
worth reminding ourselves that it was the previous government's own report entitled Salmon Net Fisheries that stipulated that the phase-out of this fishery should be gradual so as not to cause unnecessary hardship to netsmen. This is a real issue both for the netsmen involved and the Environment Agency, which is responsible for managing the fishery.
In the little time that I have left I should like to support the recommendations with regard to carcass tagging, the prohibition of the sale of rod-caught fish and emergency powers to limit fishing—provisions that are called for both in the task force report and the English and Welsh strategy. I hope that such measures will be brought in speedily with any new legislation. I also endorse the need for an element of public funding via grant-in-aid for Scottish fisheries. As is the case south of the Border, these fisheries are a national asset that should receive an adequate degree of public support.
As outlined in section 4.17, the public purse is already being used to support indirectly Scottish salmon fisheries through the valuable contribution made to research and monitoring work by the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory. Recently I was asked by the Scottish Office to lead a visiting group to assess the research carried out by the laboratory. Although its primary role is to provide advice and information to government, I believe that it also plays an important role in providing scientific advice and support to a wide range of bodies involved in Scottish fisheries management.
The salmon strategy for England and Wales is now being implemented and salmon action plans have already been drawn up for 12 rivers. I sincerely hope that shortly there will be action in relation to this report and that it will be used to meet the terms of reference set for the task force to safeguard the future of these magnificent fish in Scotland well into the next century.
10.39 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Nickson and his colleagues on this excellent report, in particular chapter 5. I am perhaps more familiar with the contents of that chapter than some of the other chapters. My reason for speaking tonight is to suggest two very slight changes of emphasis in the chapter. I believe that these could be important to the recovery of spawning streams running off very acid soils which lie on granite or other nutrient-poor base rock. I am therefore referring to much of the West Highlands which the report highlights as an area of particular decline in salmon and sea trout stocks.
I do not pretend that my tentative conclusions should necessarily apply to richer soils and therefore to richer waters. My ideas are based entirely on personal study over some 40 years and on some scientific experimental work which is taking place on Rannoch Moor; that is to say, in some of the headwaters of the Tay.
There can be little doubt that throughout much of the Highlands an almost catastrophic impoverishment of the soil and thus of the waters which flow off it has taken

295
place since the Highland clearances, and I fear that it continues today. There are those who seek to blame this largely on acid rain, and no doubt that is one of the culprits. Indeed, analysis of core samples taken from the deepest part of Loch Laidon, on Rannoch Moor, clearly shows the onset of acid rain soon after the industrial revolution began. The cores from that period demonstrate how the richness of plant and aquatic life started to deteriorate around then, as the acid depositions built up.
However, another very important change happened at the same time. When the people left the land (many of them to work in the factories which started to produce the acid rain) their cattle left too. Until then, the Highland economy was largely based on cattle. Deer and sheep were a comparative rarity but have since come to dominate the area—a domination that has now lasted for 100 years or more—with their mono-grazing culture. So my first suggestion is that a return of cattle for the summer grazings round the spawning burns of west Highland rivers, and a heavy reduction in grazing by sheep and deer, could prove very beneficial. Of course, the report is right to point out, in paragraph 5.10, that overgrazing by any animal is detrimental. However, in the areas I am discussing, the culprits are sheep and deer. Cattle are sadly a rarity.
Our experiment on Rannoch Moor consists of putting cattle back for the summer grazings onto the catchment area of a small burn and measuring their effect on the flora, insects and water quality. Changes to the flora and insects are being monitored by scientists formerly attached to Bristol University. Analysis of the water is being carried out in association with University College London and by the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratories at Pitlochry.
The cattle eat the dreaded molinia grass which grows tall and shuts out the light from other plants. Molinia grass is eschewed by sheep and deer which prefer the shorter, more nutritious grasses, and it has therefore become a cancer of the west Highlands. The manure of cattle also supports earthworms, while the droppings of sheep and deer are too meagre to do so in any useful quantities. Sheep and deer are very extractive animals.
Well, after only five years, the cattle's beneficial effect on the flora is striking, with a measurable diversity of new plants now growing where once the molinia held sway. It is too early to say whether similar beneficial effect is yet evident in the quality of the water: there are some signs that that may be so. I am confident that in time it will be evident. After all, it took us 150 years to get into this mess. We must allow at least 20 years for recovery in scientifically measurable terms. So my first slight change of emphasis is to separate cattle from sheep and deer, and to start thinking how to promote the former at the expense of the latter. No easy task, I fear.
My second suggestion is to emphasise the benefits of reafforestation with birch, alder and other hardwoods in our part of the world. The report rightly points out the damage that recent dense commercial conifer plantations may have done to fish, but I am not sure that a few yards on either side of the burns left free for
296
hardwoods will necessarily redress the balance, at least not on the very acid and rain-drenched soils around us. I would submit that the new native pinewood schemes, with their requirement for the planting of willows, birches and particularly alders, with their nitrogen fixing quality, could be very beneficial round the spawning streams. I hope that those schemes will continue to be encouraged.
I do not pretend that the return of cattle and hardwood forests would necessarily solve all our problems, but I hope that these suggestions will he examined against the background of the rest of this wide-ranging and penetrating report.
10.45 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am sorry to spoil the party, but here comes the netsman in this lions' den of anglers! I must first declare my interests. I am the chairman of the company which owns the Thurso River, which we net and which has had an increase in spring catch over the past few years. I am also a member of the Caithness District Fishery Board and I have recently joined the fishing committee of the British Field Sports Society.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, for introducing the debate tonight and for his chairmanship of the task force. Most particularly, I thank him for his warm welcome and kind words regarding my father, which were greatly appreciated.
A five minute speech does not lend itself to considered argument. Although there is a good deal in the report which I commend and upon which I am sure we can all agree, I am sorry to say that my welcome is qualified. In view of those time constraints, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I go straight for the jugular.
My first point concerns the composition of the task force. Its terms of reference required it to consider, among other things, the challenges and opportunities for sustainable exploitation of the stocks into the next century. It is important to distinguish between the general interest in sustainable exploitation and the particular interest of different exploiters. The most obvious is between anglers and netsmen. In this regard, and in spite of the noble Lord's introduction as to the members of the task force, there is a widespread perception that the angling interest dominates. That is a perception which I have heard with satisfaction from anglers and with dismay from netsmen. Indeed, in the netsmen's response to the report, the Netfishing Association of Scotland states:
"We express deep concern at the theme of the report which is more sympathetic to angling".
There is not sufficient time properly to develop the arguments in favour of an equitable balance between the legitimate interests of both parties. I would only be repeating what I said at col. 1720 of the Official Report of 1st May 1996. However, I will say that the tenant netsmen of the north east who are, as it were, crofters of the sea, perceive their legitimate rights to be under grave threats from rich southern anglers. Such social divisiveness is neither necessary nor wanted,

297
particularly when the scientific evidence more and more shows that the netsman is not necessarily the culprit he has been believed to be.
Much of the case put forward by anglers is based on the economic argument, which, in turn, is based on work largely done by Mackay Consultants of Inverness, who I know well. It is important when using such reports to understand the criteria used. The argument is much less clear and not as simple as the report leads one to believe.
My second major concern relates to the analysis and recommendations in respect of fisheries administration. The analysis, if I may say so, is flawed and the recommendations naïve. Indeed, I have already put forward my views in correspondence to the Minister's predecessor. Shortly after the report's publication, I attended a meeting of our district fishery board in Caithness. That is largely composed of locals and the landowning interest is much in the minority. This section of the report was unanimously and vociferously condemned. I have been informed that that view is taken by other boards in the North. If adopted, these recommendations would add nothing much to fisheries administration, but they would have damaging consequences. They would increase cost; they would bang together illogical geographical areas; they would dilute the salmon interest with other interests; and, worst of all in my view, they would divorce local people from fisheries administration. I am sure that much can be done to improve fisheries administration, but in my opinion these recommendations are not the answer.
Perhaps I may end on a more positive note. The report, as did the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, makes it quite clear that the battle for enhanced and sustainable salmon stocks will be fought and won in terms of environmental management. Pollution has wiped out many rivers; human predation none. It is in habitat restoration, pollution control and sound environmental management that we shall make a real difference.
Much has been made of the collapse of numbers. I wish to quote from the Net Fishing Association's response to the report to the Scottish Office. It states:
"Apart from the rod and line catch taken prior to 1st May each year, the decline has been confined to the net fishery. The number of spawners has remained remarkably stable in monitored rivers. It may be only coincidental but the present decrease in catches has occurred over the same period, while the degradation of the habitat was accelerating for a host of reasons".
On that, I find myself very much in agreement with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. That may be a first but I hope that it will happen again.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us that this matter is still under review. There really is much good in this report, and I apologise to the noble Lord that I have picked out the bad parts. But there are flaws in it. Rather than cast aside the report, I suggest that it should be regarded as a very strong and sound building block for the future.
10.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Nickson both for his report and for the debate. I have a small interest to declare in that I enjoy salmon fishing, if "enjoy" is the right word, and thanks, if that is the right word, to the general election on 1st May I intend to do a great deal of on-the-bank investigation over the next two months without Red Boxes or anything else like that.
I was also the co-author of the 1986 Act in that I took it through the other place. Therefore, I was happy to see an endorsement of some of the decisions that were made in that Act. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, that I went one step further than Willie Ross and banned the carriage of nylon monofilament nets in Scottish waters. No statues have yet been erected to me.
If freed of collective Cabinet responsibility (which I was discussing earlier today) I confess that when we took the 1986 Act through the other place—and it was taken through this House by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin—I hoped earnestly for a Back-Bench rebellion on the subject of the north-east driftnet fishery but for some reason it never came. I have been beaten on other matters when I had not wanted that to happen. It was something of an irony that when I should have been quite happy to be defeated it never occurred.
It has always seemed illogical to me that we have allowed the north-east driftnet fishery to continue and especially, if I may introduce a small element of politics, in that it seemed that all we were doing was defending the seat of a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. Perhaps I should say that I was delighted to be at one with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on that issue, as normally we are at variance.
Are stocks declining? Yes, of course they are. I have the figures from the Awe where there is a good counter and the level flow, thanks to the hydro board, is fairly constant year on year. It does not matter whether it rains; salmon can still run the river. For many years the five-year total was 15,000, 16,000, 17,000, 18,000 and it is now running at 10,000, 11,000 or 12,000. That is a significant decline.
I do not know what is the reason for that. I do not think there is one reason, and in that respect I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. There is a variety of reasons. I am puzzled as to whether the problem is as regards the river or the sea. Perhaps the Minister will help me about that. Most rivers—the Awe being one—count the salmon returning but do not count the smolts returning. I do not know whether they do in the North Esk and, if they do, perhaps the Minister's officials can help in that regard.
I believe that the problem occurs at sea. I now want to introduce sea trout into this discussion. It is interesting that the factors which caused the decline of the salmon and sea trout on the west coast cannot be the same as the factors on the east coast. That is why I believe it is a rather more complicated issue than people make out.

299
Predators are a problem. The grey seal population will double in the next 12 years. I accept that culling is difficult. "Condoming" may be the only answer. I believe that there is an argument for stopping sand-eel fishing. That is not just because of salmon and sea trout but because the sand eel forms the base of the food chain for many other fish species. Therefore, I should like to go further in that regard.
I wish to spend my remaining two minutes speaking about fish farming. When I was the Member of Parliament for Argyll and Argyll and Bute I very much favoured fish farming. I do not regret that. It brings, and brought, jobs to west coast areas where they were in very short supply and it reduced the price of salmon. That made poaching less attractive and commercial netting less attractive. That is something which the noble Viscount did not mention.
But there are minuses. One minus is the problem of escapees, and I do not mean just escapees from the salmon cages, the small salmon, but escapees from smolt cages moored in lochs like Loch Etive on the Awe system. I worry about the damage that may be caused by those escapees to the genetic make-up of the local populations from one river to another.
I am also concerned about disease and about sea lice. We ought to be thinking about the work done in Ireland by Professor Whelan. The Awe Fisheries Trust has a scientist, Dr. Colin Ball, who is netting samples of sea trout and smolts in Loch Etive. He certainly reports heavy sea lice infection. I am now persuaded, although I was not to begin with, that that is a major problem in the decline of the sea trout and salmon fishing on the west coast. That applies particularly to sea trout because they do not actually migrate far; indeed, they stay in the coastal waters affected by salmon cages and by the sea lice. We will have to look seriously at the prospect of pushing salmon cages out of coastal waters adjacent to river estuaries and into perhaps deeper and more open water, with better current and better movement. I should add that we can all offer the Minister tight lines when it comes to fishing in this particular pond.
10.56 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, in his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, drew attention to the fact that we may have moved away from a five-day test to a limited overs match. I have to say that my only ambition when I was much younger was to be a first-class cricketer, but the trouble was that I was an opening batsman and my style made Mr. Geoffrey Boycott look something of a cavalier.
Earlier in the day we had a rather long hors-d'oeuvre, but we have now moved on to a slightly more interesting part of the meal. If I ever thought that there were any doubts about the interest that Members of this House attach to salmon, they were very soon dispelled when I saw the speakers' list. Indeed, the quality, not just the number, of those who participated tonight has proved that to be absolutely correct. When I assumed my present responsibilities, I was told that there were two subjects in which your Lordships were really interested; namely, forestry and salmon. I have not had a forestry debate as yet, so I wait for that to see what I will be like.
300
I should like warmly to congratulate all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. For my part, it has been one of the most educational discussions that I have heard in your Lordships' House. I should like specifically to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, and the members of his task force who provided us with the report and the basis for this evening's debate.
Perhaps I may point out that the report has provoked a great deal of public response. The consultative exercise has so far produced 373 responses from organisations to individual anglers and everything in between. If we put that on one side and weigh it against the fact that another recent consultation exercise on coastal planning guidelines attracted 46 responses, we can see how the balance is struck between those two interesting subjects. We are now in the third print run of the noble Lord's report. The demand may have something to do with the fact that it is free; indeed, unlike the Welsh White Paper, it is not even half price. It is free. However, I do not think that that reflects on the quality of the document.
Anyone wishing to learn about the biology of salmon and sea trout—about their habitats and the management arrangements which apply, or indeed, about the difficulties faced by this most valuable species—could hardly do better than to read the report. I must admit that I learned things from the report of which I had no knowledge before I started reading it.
The noble Lord spoke to me some weeks ago about his intention to initiate this debate. I think both of us recognised there was something of a dilemma; namely, did he press for an early debate which might come before consideration of the report had been completed, which would constrain what I could say, or did he wait until the consultation process had been completed and then in terms of the Government's response the die would have been cast? I think it is right that we have had an early debate. That means that I am very much in the listening mode and that is a good thing. We are still considering the responses we have received. We have to evaluate them.
I thought for most of the debate we were in total inclusive mode. Those are words I would have dreaded to introduce into your Lordships' House until the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, had made his contribution. This matter in some areas goes beyond differences of nuance; there are differences of interpretation and differences in weighing the evidence that is available to us. Those matters require proper consideration and proper reflection.
I mentioned earlier that we have received 373 responses to the report. All have in common a genuine interest in the welfare of the salmon and sea trout. It is important that we include the sea trout in our discussions. However, as one might have anticipated, perceptions of how to achieve that goal differ somewhat and the comments reflect that. An assessment and analysis of responses is under way and I hope that the Government will be able to indicate their conclusions by the autumn. That is the time frame that we are working towards. I am genuinely not in a position at this time to

301
say precisely what the conclusions will be. However, a number of themes have emerged in today's debate and I wish to use the short time available to me to offer some initial comments. I realise that I shall probably not be able to respond to a number of specific points that have been raised during the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, highlighted recommendation 19 of the report dealing with the need for consolidation of existing legislation. That matter was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Mason of Barnsley and Lord Burton, and the noble Earl, Lord Haig, who all supported the need for consolidation. The myriad Acts of Parliament which touch on salmon were emphasised. These can be a major headache for those involved, including owners, fishery boards, bailiffs and the police. I say as clearly as I can that in principle the Government have no problems with consolidation. Inevitably there is the issue of how it might fit in with changes in legislation which may be deemed necessary later. There is also the major enemy of finding place for it in the parliamentary timetable. I assure noble Lords that work on consolidation, involving the former inspector of salmon and freshwater fisheries to the department—himself a member of the task force—is under way and will continue.
As regards new legislation, we must wait and see. I am not at the stage where I can make any definitive comments. But I am tempted to follow what was almost an invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, and say that it may properly be a matter to be considered by a Scottish parliament where the pressure on the parliamentary timetable may not be as severe.
I turn to another of the topics which generated a fair measure of interest—indeed on some occasions passion—fish farming and the proposal in Recommendation 61 that an independent regulatory body should be established to oversee the industry's development. A few weeks ago I attended the National Sea Trout Conference held in Dumfries. While there I was left in no doubt about the strong reservations held by many of the anglers on the subject of fish farming. But equally there was an acknowledgement that to attribute the reduction in sea trout in particular off the north-west of Scotland simply to farm salmon, and in particular the problem of sea lice, was perhaps over simplistic given other contributing factors such as climatic change, acidification and predation. My background is as a social scientist. I tend to think that searching for a monocausal explanation is a rather futile exercise; that if something complex is taking place a range of factors usually come together and interact. I welcomed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, which indicated the perhaps unexpected range of factors at which we might start looking.
Clearly we are still some way from getting a conclusive answer on the fish farming problem.
302
However, what regrettably is a fact—we ignore it at our peril—is that in many rivers declines in sea trout numbers were in evidence well before the expansion of fish farming. I believe that that is historically the case. Purely by chance recently—I believe at the Scottish Game Fair—on spring salmon catches I picked up this point. Existing records show a significant decline. However, the records for, I believe, the Tweed go back for a much longer period. One clearly sees a cyclical effect when one goes back into the nineteenth century and the early part of this century. If one goes back only to the 1950s one sees something pretty dramatic. If one goes back much further one sees a cycle in operation. I have not examined those figures in detail but they shed an interesting light on the problem.
We have to acknowledge that fish farming is an important industry. It is now worth £250 million to the Scottish economy—more than sheep—and employs about 5,000 people, most, as in angling, living in remote areas where employment opportunities are otherwise exceedingly rare. Of course we have to ensure that the industry develops in a way with which we are comfortable. The role of the likes of SEPA and SNH are clearly important. Whether we need yet another body, another quango, I am not yet convinced in all honesty, but I shall read the comments on that carefully. Meanwhile the Crown Estate Commissioners have indicated their wish to relinquish their planning role in fish farming—a role which, not entirely fairly, has attracted criticism—and I hope to make an announcement on this shortly.
A third aspect of the task force report on which I would wish to offer some preliminary comment is netting of salmon—I think that it was 12 to one. The task force clearly sought to tread a careful path on the subject of fixed netting. On drift netting, however, they strongly urged in Recommendations 33 and 34 that we should seek to accelerate its closure, in particular off the north-east of England but also in Ireland. and this not unsurprisingly has drawn comments this evening from the noble Lords, Lord Nickson, Lord Mason of Barnsley, Lord Sanderson, Lord Moran, the noble Duke, the Duke of Roxhurghe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso.
Noble Lords will have noted that on 7th July my noble friend Lord Donoughue announced that MAFF would he commissioning a review not entirely dissimilar to that undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, on English and Welsh salmon and freshwater legislation. One of the topics it is likely to address is drift net fishing. My noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley has given me a copy of the report. If my noble friend Lord Donoughue does not receive it by any other route he will get it from me. We shall make sure that that informs him.
It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate the outcome of that review. Supporters of closure will no doubt take some comfort from the fact that the number of licences issued since 1992 has decreased by

303
40 per cent. from 142 to 89, and I can assure them that their comments this evening will be brought to the attention of my MAFF colleagues.
Finally, I should like to say something about Recommendation 1 which advocates replacement of the current district salmon fishery boards with 20 fishery area boards. The arguments made are persuasive and will be considered carefully, but a point that has to be borne in mind is that the current fishery boards, though statutory, came into being at the request of the owners, who saw this as a means to co-operate. Forced marriages, which is how some might see the proposed area hoards, could well lack that voluntary goodwill and one has to wonder what the price might be to achieve it.
My 10 minutes are well past. I hope I have been able to cover some of the main points of the report. We are actively considering it and I trust that I shall be able to make some statements on some of the areas in the near future.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to; with certain other amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; and with the remaining amendments disagreed
304
to with reasons; the Commons amendments and reasons ordered to be printed.

Parliamentary Privilege: Joint Select Committee
A message was brought from the Commons that they have ordered—
That a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords, as the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, to review parliamentary privilege and make recommendations thereon;
That three be the Quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; and to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference;
That Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, being Members of either House, may attend the Committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive Committee papers and may give such other assistance to the Committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any Motion or move any Amendment or be counted in the Quorum.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Baltic States: Military Assistance
  Baltic States: Military Assistance
  Cyprus: Treaties
  Cyprus: Treaties
  Former Yugoslavia: Indicted War Criminals
  Former Yugoslavia: Indicted War Criminals
  Anglo-Faroese Delimitation Talks
  Anglo-Faroese Delimitation Talks
  Human Rights Abuses: Imposition of Sanctions
  Human Rights Abuses: Imposition of Sanctions
  Foreign Affairs Mission Statement: Saudi Response
  Foreign Affairs Mission Statement: Saudi Response
  UNITA
  UNITA
  Anti-Drug Initiatives
  Anti-Drug Initiatives
  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Privy Counsellor's Oath
  Privy Counsellor's Oath
  Royal Courts of Justice: Wheelchair Access to Courts
  Royal Courts of Justice: Wheelchair Access to Courts
  Wheelchair Access to Courts in the RCJ
  Wheelchair Access to Courts in the RCJ
  Motability: Grants for Alterations
  Motability: Grants for Alterations
  Asylum Seekers: Costs of Support
  Asylum Seekers: Costs of Support
  Employment Levels
  Employment Levels
  NCIS and the Internet
  NCIS and the Internet
  NCIS and NCS: Chairman and Members
  NCIS and NCS: Chairman and Members
  Hong Kong: Governor's Final Report
  Hong Kong: Governor's Final Report
  Dublin Convention
  Dublin Convention
  Horserace Betting Levy: Impact of National Lottery
  Horserace Betting Levy: Impact of National Lottery
  Data Protection Legislation Proposals
  Data Protection Legislation Proposals
  Crime (Sentences) Act 1997: Implementation
  Crime (Sentences) Act 1997: Implementation
  Delay in the Criminal Justice System: Response to Review
  Delay in the Criminal Justice System: Response to Review
  Food Standards Agency: Response and Consultation
  Food Standards Agency: Response and Consultation
  Gyrodactylus Salaris
  Gyrodactylus Salaris
  Vitamin B6 Supplements
  Vitamin B6 Supplements
  Vitamin B6 Supplements: Adverse Reactions
  Vitamin B6 Supplements: Adverse Reactions
  Vitamin B6: Limit in Dietary Supplements
  Vitamin B6: Limit in Dietary Supplements
  Vitamin B6: Scientific Evidence for Limiting Supplementation
  Vitamin B6: Scientific Evidence for Limiting Supplementation
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  BSE Selective Cull
  BSE Selective Cull
  Intervention Board: Performance and Key Targets
  Intervention Board: Performance and Key Targets
  Radioactive Waste: Dumping at Sea
  Radioactive Waste: Dumping at Sea
  Veterinary Field Service
  Veterinary Field Service
  Government Reviews
  Government Reviews
  Government Secure Intranet
  Government Secure Intranet
  Windfall Tax: Impact
  Windfall Tax: Impact
  Pension Funds and ACT
  Pension Funds and ACT
  Lockerbie Investigation
  Lockerbie Investigation
  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979: Review
  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979: Review
  Asylum: Withdrawal
  Asylum: Withdrawal
  MMR Immunisation and Autism
  MMR Immunisation and Autism
  Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention: Consultation
  Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention: Consultation
  Opencast Coal Extraction
  Opencast Coal Extraction
  Blackwall Tunnel Closures
  Blackwall Tunnel Closures
  Chewing Gum as Litter
  Chewing Gum as Litter
  Marine Special Areas of Conservation
  Marine Special Areas of Conservation
  Discharges of Dangerous Substances into Controlled Waters
  Discharges of Dangerous Substances into Controlled Waters
  Partnership for Peace Exercises: Funding
  Partnership for Peace Exercises: Funding
  Gulf War Illness: Group Captain Coker's Findings
  Gulf War Illness: Group Captain Coker's Findings